Holding editors to account
The
former Liberal cabinet minister Paul
Hellyer, after a long career defending Canadian sovereignty from American incursions, has a new reason to mistrust the United States: UFOs. Specifically, the efforts by successive American governments to conceal from public knowledge the 1947 crash of an alien spacecraft in Roswell, New Mexico.
“I believe that UFOs are real,” Mr. Hellyer, who who was second to Pierre Trudeau on the first ballot at the 1968 Liberal leadership convention, told the Canadian Press recently. Later this week, he will speak at a convention of UFO enthusiasts in Toronto. “I’ll talk about that a little bit and a bit about the fantastic coverup of the United States government and also a little bit of the fallout from the wreckage.” By “fallout” he means the adaptation of technologies found in the Roswell craft in subsequent American technical advances. I’d tell you more, but it’s just too risky.
I feel a certain unease in writing this: It is possible that Mr. Hellyer has simply lost his mind, and it’s not right to poke fun at a lunatic. On the other hand, who knows any more? What once were classed as psychological disorders are today considered perfectly normal, while behaviour for which one might previously have been held responsible is now just another form of mental illness.
More to the point, what is to distinguish Mr. Hellyer’s belief in a massive, decadeslong conspiracy by the American government to conceal the existence of alien visitors to planet Earth from, say, Paul William Roberts’ belief in a massive, decades-long conspiracy by the American government to create the very Islamist terror network it is now fighting — not as an accidental “blowback,” but as a deliberate strategy to justify more military spending? The first makes you the butt of an oddly-enough piece on the CP wire. The second is worth a threepage, 5,000-word essay in
Yet the one has precisely as little plausibility or supporting evidence as the other.
Mind you, give it time. Experience teaches that any theory, no matter how crackpot, can gain a respectful hearing in this country, so long as it asks us to believe the worst about the Americans or their government: Anti-Americanism inoculates even the worst cranks from serious scrutiny. Paul Hellyer may not have much of a following now, but depend upon it, he will be packing them in at the universities before long.
My colleague Jonathan Kay has already detailed the many factual howlers in the Roberts piece, which somehow “got by” the
fact-checkers. But I rather think something else is at work. The piece would have been planned long in advance. Having written several previous pieces for the
Mr. Roberts would be well-known to the editors, as would his views. For example, readers of his latest book,
will learn, inter alia, that Saddam Hussein killed many fewer Iraqis than the United States, and with more justification: After all, the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s victims were people “who opposed him in some way.” And they will learn the real reason for the failure of Saddam’s vaunted Special Republican Guard to show up for battle: They were all vaporized, 40,000 of them at one go, by “some kind of hi-tech bomb” detonated in the warren of tunnels under Baghdad.
“Fact-checking,” in the circumstances, would seem beside the point. It isn’t that Mr. Roberts’ piece was, in that fine old journalistic phrase, “too good to check,” or that the editors think fact-checking is a tool of imperialism. It’s more that it would be, well, gauche — like the fellow who objects to modern art because it isn’t realistic. It may not be true, but it’s “true enough.” Likewise, when Linda McQuaig explains that the Katrina disaster is a consequence of FEMA having been “ privatized,” or when Jeremy Clarkson writes feelingly in London’s
of seeing New Orleans looters blown to bits by helicopter gunships, it isn’t true in a conventional, real-world sense. It is rather true in a transcendent, ecstatic sense.
We are dealing not so much with a factual matter, in other words, as a psychological one. There is an undeniable pleasure in tweaking the conventional wisdom: I confess to indulging in it at times myself. But what begins as a harmless contrarianism can progress by stages into full-blown conspiracyof which anti- Americanism is a particularly malignant example. The sufferer experiences the thrill of having “pierced the veil.” He has seen through the official lies that have everyone else in their thrall, and every piece of evidence to the contrary merely confirms him in his belief. At the furthest extreme, it emerges as Holocaust denial.
This puts the student of argument in an uncomfortable position. Convention dictates that every opponent should be treated with courtesy, every argument with respect. But what do we do with arguments that are plainly, well, crazy? Reasonable people can differ, of course, but so can unreasonable people, and we do our worthy opponents no honour by lumping them in with our unworthy opponents.
Civilized discussion depends not only on an open-minded readiness to consider other legitimate points of view, but on an equal readiness to exclude the obviously marginal. There is a time and a place to debate whether the Earth goes around the sun or the contrary, but we should have little time to address other matters if we were perpetually revisiting old controversies, or disproving every fantasy. For everyday purposes, we are obliged to exercise some basic judgment: I cannot prove beyond dispute that there are no UFOs, but I am justified by all experience in drawing the inference that there are not.
And, when it comes to the public square, we depend on the gatekeepers — the editors of our newspapers, the publishers of our books, to exercise that judgment on our behalf. If they fail in that duty, the result is intellectual anarchy, where every opinion, no matter how nonsensical, is of equal validity and every source, no matter how dubious, is of equal authority. Or, if you prefer, contemporary Canada.
National Post
ac@ andrewcoyne. com