Hyman's ACLU Smears 2

It’s nice when Mark Hyman deconstructs his own commentaries for us.

Such is the case with the second part of Hyman’s attack on the ACLU. Once again, Hyman commits the elementary fallacy of suggesting that selected parts of the ACLU’s earliest history are in some way indicative of its present policies. Specifically, Hyman singles out comments from the ACLU’s first annual report, written 85 years ago, that he interprets as being pro-communist.

Hyman goes on to suggest that this suggests the ACLU’s “naked support of dictatorial governments.”

The logic here is non-existent, but let’s grant Hyman’s premise for the sake of argument: the ACLU’s defense of American communists is equivalent to supporting totalitarian communist regimes abroad, and that even though this happened nearly a century ago, it is still a black mark against the organization that suggests it is subversive and un-American.

Granting this, let’s look at the other significant chunk of Hyman’s commentary. In addition suggesting the ACLU was a communist organization at its inception, Hyman also cites the group’s animosity toward the American Legion:

It was only 141 words into the annual report before the ACLU
singled out by name the group it believed posed the biggest threat: the American
Legion. Yes, that American Legion. This anti-veteran attitude was manifested in
the ACLU's efforts at freeing World War One draft resistors serving time in
jail.

So, Hyman is using the opposition of the ACLU to the American Legion 85 years ago to suggest how beyond the pale their politics were and are. After all, what kind of troops-hating, anti-American, Red-loving group could possibly have anything against a group of gray-haired vets playing pinochle down at the local veteran’s hall and organizing baseball leagues for kids?

But here’s the most damning flaw in Hyman’s argument. Today’s American Legion isn’t your great grandfather’s American Legion. In the years following its founding in 1919, the American Legion was a highly political and highly conservative group that engaged in, among other things, violent strike breaking and other anti-labor activities. Founded by an industrialist, the group was very much in the pocket of big business during the tumultuous 20’s and 30’s, and was actively hostile against not only suspected communists, but any group that it felt worked to protect the rights of communists, socialists, labor union members, etc.

Moreover, the American Legion’s leadership expressed open admiration for fascism, particularly that of Benito Mussolini (who was apparently invited to speak at American Legion conventions on a yearly basis in the 20s, although he never took them up on their offer).

At its 1923 convention, the Legion’s Commander in Chief, Alvin Owsley said:

If ever needed the American Legion stands ready to protect our country's
institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who
menaced Italy . . . The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens
our democratic government-Soviets, anarchists, I.W.W., revolutionary socialists
and every other Red ... Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the
American Legion is to the United States."

And Hyman accuses the ACLU of “naked support of dictatorial governments”?

Of course, much has changed since the 20’s and 30s, a period in which the extreme ends of the political spectrum enjoyed more mainstream popularity than they do today. The American Legion, while conservative, is not a fascistic group. The ACLU, while liberal, is not a communist group.

But what Hyman does is insult the intelligence of his audience by openly misleading them with reasoning he knows to be slovenly. He counts on the ignorance of his audience by insinuating that the ACLU’s policies of nearly a century ago accurately characterize the group today. And he also counts on his audience assuming that the American Legion today is the same group that it was 85 years ago. Despite openly using the appeal of historical research to add to its credibility, Hyman’s editorial collapses the past and the present in a way that is meant to intentionally deceive his audience by ignoring historical facts.

I know I’m a broken record when it comes to this, but Hyman again proves that his primary fault isn’t the political stance he takes. Reasonable arguments can be made against the ACLU in general, and its specific positions in particular cases. Rather, it’s the way Hyman makes his case—using obvious fallacy, distortion of facts, and his reliance on his audience’s ignorance about the specifics of the issue to support his point.

To those who disagree with Hyman politically, he’s simply Exhibit A in the case against conservatism. But for those who do agree with him, he’s actually far worse: he demeans and debases legitimate conservative thought and argument by being so sloppy and manipulative in his arguments that he lives up to the very worst stereotypes of conservatives as dogmatic, ignorant, and untruthful.

But it is to all of us collectively—left, right, or center—that Hyman is at his most destructive. His unethical and deceptive way of arguing impoverishes the public sphere, contaminating the lifeblood of any democratic society—rational discourse—with the contagion of his manipulative and insulting rhetoric.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 5.95