Final Thoughts On How To Talk About Pigford
This is going to get complicated quickly. My apologies. If you’ve never heard the word Pigford before this may be a post to skip. In my last stint guestblogging at The Daily Dish, I wrote a post about the Pigford controversy, where I basically argued that since it’s inevitably going to be an ongoing matter of dispute, the best way to talk about it is to focus on the reporting published in National Review by Daniel Foster, a writer whose basic integrity as a person I trust, rather than the stuff published by Andrew Breitbart, whose outspokenness on the matter is clearly outweighed by the numerous instances in which he has brazenly injected egregiously misleading information into public discourse.
So often, stories like this turn into conversational train wrecks. I see one coming – and an opportunity to do better. Let’s treat this like a complicated matter, one where even people writing in good faith can make mistakes, making it a perfect fit for the vetting function that comes from honest back-and-forths in the blogosphere.
The vetting started immediately. I’d noted an aspect of Foster’s piece that seemed particularly persuasive to me. Ta-Nehisi Coates, Adam Serwer, and Mark Thompson pushed back hard. I quickly saw that I’d been mistaken in buying into that particular argument, and said so. As is their wont, the folks at Balloon Juice misunderstood and misrepresented my narrow apology.
Meanwhile, National Review posted Foster’s piece online, so that folks no longer had to rely on my poor summary. Foster pushed back against his critics. Serwer went another round. And then the good people at Bloggingheads arranged for a diavlog between Foster and Serwer, which can be seen here. Some of the conversation is tedious through no fault of the interlocutors. This is a complicated story to talk about, especially for an audience that isn’t initiated. Other parts are riveting. It isn’t often that you see two writers with wildly different takes on race in America willing to confront one another and converse in ways that make both of them uncomfortable.
The exchange that has played out is basically what I hoped for when I wrote that initial post urging engagement with Foster’s piece. I’d wager that Foster, Serwer, Thompson and Coates would all write things a bit differently if they could redo this whole exchange. On the whole, however, I think they’ve all conducted themselves rather well: more precisely, whatever their mistakes, they’ve all argued in good faith, with intellectual honesty and a desire to leave the public better informed about the matter at hand. Put another way, if everyone merely rose to the level of imperfect reporting, analysis and argument displayed here, American public discourse would be greatly improved.
But damn, this is a messy, maddening process. Among the writers I’ve mentioned, there were heated exchanges, hurt feelings, occasional suspicions of bad faith, tedious intervals that didn’t make for particularly entertaining journalism… and as a reader, one had to wade through all of it for the payoff of being a lot better informed on the other end… but even being better informed, there wasn’t the satisfaction of easy answers or resolution to all the disagreements.
What I find so wrongheaded about the Balloon Juice approach to this story – and the approach taken by folks who emailed me insisting that I should have never written my initial post – is the glib insistence that merely wanting a robust exchange was tantamount to being Andrew Breitbart’s useful idiot. If you’ve clicked through to the various links above, compare Foster’s piece and his exchange on Bloggingheads to the blinkered way that Breitbart talks about the case:
To me, if you can’t distinguish the difference, you’re not evaluating this matter in good faith. One thing you’ll find is that all the people I’ve cited favorably have a hard time talking about subjects like this without being suspicious even of their good-faith interlocutors in part because of the bad behavior of the Andrew Breitbarts and Al Sharptons of the world.
When I watch Foster and Serwer on Bloggingheads, I don’t for a minute imagine that they’ve reconciled all their disagreements and criticisms of one another. But I can’t help but conclude that their exchange does a little bit to repair the suspicion we all have about folks who disagree with us on fraught subjects. Speaking of which, the very next diavlog pits Glenn Greenwald against David Frum.
I love BHTV.
Thanks for the link to Mr. Foster’s article. Having read it, I am hard pressed to see how Mr. Breitbart’s advocacy journalism can significantly exceed the narrative of waste and fraud which is already present.
— sammler · Feb 23, 02:37 PM · #
This post is a bit meta for me. No final words on the actual substance of the issue?
— Patrick · Feb 23, 02:39 PM · #
Well, the shot conservative intellectuals tend to take from liberals is that a good bulk of it’s intellectual power is used towards taking race-baiting and white resentment and wrapping it in conservative language. The NR taking Breitbart seriously enough to mount a defense of his work is just one gigantic extension of this. The “useful idiot” distinction at least suggests that you were intellectually lazy rather than intellectually dishonest.
— Console · Feb 23, 03:07 PM · #
Patrick, Conor’s area of interest is a bit meta — he’s very interested in intra-partisan dialogue, and writes quite a bit about it.
I confess that the Pigford settlement is a bit astonishing, but the whole issue is so confounded by race that it’s difficult to discuss.
— J Mann · Feb 23, 04:38 PM · #
It’s possible that BOTH of the following statements may be true:
(1) You and Foster conducted yourselves in good faith AND
(2) You ultimately ended up being Breitbart’s useful idiots.
You say “the people I’ve cited favorably have a hard time talking about subjects like this without being suspicious even of their good-faith interlocutors in part because of the bad behavior of the Andrew Breitbarts and Al Sharptons of the world.” But I’d go one step further: the presence of people like Bretbart makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have a truly productive conversation at all (in the sense of advancing the topic in a net positive way).
It’s like the Bell curve issue. The proper response was not a calm refutation of the lies, but rather shaming animals like Murray as the racist he is. Discussing his bad faith pseudo scholarship as if there was a legitimate academic dispute merely lends credence to his vile racism.
The same with Breitbart. The Balloon Juice approach IS THE CORRECT ONE, even if some people, you included, take some unfair lumps in the process.
Conor, you make the same mistake again and again. This isn’t an academic debate. You don’t beat these animals* by playing fair.
*Apologies to animals everywhere for the analogy.
— Larry Maggitti · Feb 23, 07:34 PM · #
And yo maybe just make myself clear: while there are intellectually honest conservatives, there are no intellectually honest movement conservatives. Not only wouldn’t we give movement conservatives the benefit of the doubt w/r/t intellectual honesty, there should be a conclusive and unrebuttable presumption that every movement conservative is always acting in bad faith.
Maybe we’ll be wrong .0000001% of the time by applying such a blanket presumption, but that small chance of error is a small price to pay for the benefits we will gain by not wasting our time engaging the Breitbarts of the world.
— Larry Maggitti · Feb 23, 07:53 PM · #
And you know the more I think about it, the angrier I get with your take on the issue. My last comment, while heartfelt, was of course at least partially hyperbole, in the sense that on some issues we probably have to hold our noses and engage with these … people … on some level. But cases like this don’t fall within that category. Frankly, I’m almost more disgusted with Coates and Serwer. Mere engagement with the Breitbarts of this world (and their stooges such as Foster) is an unconditional victory for them. THIS IS HOW THEY OPERATE. People like Brietbart have placed themselves outside the bounds of reasonable discourse (though Brietbart was perceived to be within such bounds for an unconscionably long time). They need people like Foster (and for him useful idiot is too kind) and yourself, who have some credibility, to spread their vile lies. This is chapter 1,000 of that sad story.
Conor, what you ultimately have to realize is that calling you a useful idiot is the charitable response (justifiably charitable, in my opinion).
— Larry Maggitti · Feb 23, 08:10 PM · #
Foster’s piece would be more useful if he had not bollixed up the number of successful claims made under Pigford, had not bought into Breitbart’s extremist hysteria and race-baiting, and had, in a word, done his basic research. Of course, the story would have been rather less sensationalist, which is presumably why he didn’t look too to critically at what he was told.
— matoko_chan · Feb 23, 11:53 PM · #
But I’d go one step further: the presence of people like Bretbart makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have a truly productive conversation at all (in the sense of advancing the topic in a net positive way).
The above is an untrue statement.
— The Reticulator · Feb 24, 12:09 AM · #
What, exactly, is untrue about it? Notice I said “net positive.” I’m sure some people of good faith can take something positive from the kind of exchange that Conor highlights. And for every one of them, there are probably 10 people with a superficial view of the issue whose only take away will be something along the lines of “even the MSM is taking Andrew’s arguments seriously; there must be something to them.”
— lmaggitti · Feb 24, 01:01 AM · #
@Reticulator: sorry, you don’t get to argue, apropos of the pay scales of Wisconsin public workers, that the facts don’t matter in any way, and then turn around and argue that the Left has to listen to whatever facts Andrew Breitbart has, or thinks he has, to put forward. To use the standard you applied to the research about Wisconsin public workers, if Breitbart and his “gotcha” tactics offend Leftists so much they won’t talk to him, then that makes any conversation with him in it impossible.
— John Spragge · Feb 25, 04:06 AM · #
John Spragge: if Breitbart and his “gotcha” tactics offend Leftists so much they won’t talk to him, then that makes any conversation with him in it impossible.
The untrue statement I referred to was not about whether it was impossible to have a productive conversation with Breitbart, but whether it was impossible to have a productive conversation in the presence of people like Breitbart.
I guess here is where I should make a snide remark about reading. They teach it in schools in some states. Dunno about Wisconsin.
— The Reticulator · Feb 25, 05:48 AM · #
@Reticulator: Give it up… I wrote, quote, “that makes any conversation with him [Breitbart] in it impossible”, and you wrote “a productive conversation in the presence of people like Breitbart”. You can make a distinction between having someone present in a conversation, and having someone in that conversation, but particularly in the context of an internet conversation, I regard it as a distinction without a difference.
In any case, as an outsider who did not go to school in Wisconsin, and whose country (Canada) consistently does better on measures of elementary and secondary education, I see a much larger issue than Conor. Specifically, the Pigford case involves only a relatively small part of the overall system of supports for American agriculture. This system has such pervasive effects that you can observe it, literally, from space. It costs the taxpayer vast sums, distorts economic choices, punishes farmers in developing countries, infuriates American allies and trading partners, and nobody really defends it. It strikes me as quite odd that the scandal involves the one arrangement that has money going to African Americans.
— John Spragge · Feb 26, 02:30 AM · #
Give it up… I wrote, quote,…
John Spragge, if you review the thread, you’ll notice that The Reticulator’s first comment was responding to Larry Maggitti, and his/her second comment was clarifying which statement of Maggitti’s was the target of the first comment.
— kenB · Feb 26, 08:49 PM · #
I wish the Atlantic would put Conor on as a full-time blogger.
— danwesjac · Feb 28, 03:24 PM · #
[url=http://hztze5co0fjimvs3.com/]v8xfloe6y1xvloca[/url]
[link=http://o06rryofmrygcr48.com/]33n5jxxhxv07ekrp[/link]
<a href=http://9y4v26q0o5tgfbsv.com/>gb1jogwwgh9jjnum</a>
http://nw5qnf16f3ftd8qn.com/
— April Carson · Mar 8, 11:57 AM · #
[url=http://hztze5co0fjimvs3.com/]v8xfloe6y1xvloca[/url]
[link=http://o06rryofmrygcr48.com/]33n5jxxhxv07ekrp[/link]
<a href=http://9y4v26q0o5tgfbsv.com/>gb1jogwwgh9jjnum</a>
http://nw5qnf16f3ftd8qn.com/
— Cindy Mccall · Mar 8, 11:58 AM · #