If you ask me, he’s a little bit nutty — and that’s OK.
Thomas Sowell, a nationally syndicated political columnist whose efforts typically appear in this spot every Tuesday, has recently become a favorite topic of those who write letters to the editor. It started a couple weeks ago, and since then many readers have weighed in on what they consider the merits and/or faults of Sowell.
“The Columbian’s subscription to columnist Thomas Sowell’s views is unworthy of our paper,” wrote Steven B. Tubbs of Vancouver in a letter published Tuesday. “I have found one columnist whom I think has written the most thoughtful opinions and with objectivity,” countered Joyce Collins of Ridgefield in a letter published the same day. I could go on, but you get the point — critiques of Sowell run the gamut. And that’s OK.
Now, it might seem odd for one columnist to be writing about another columnist, and it probably is. But in addition to writing a column each Sunday, my day job is to be The Columbian’s Editorial Page editor, and that means that I have a say in which columns we publish.
We print one syndicated column six days a week — I get the Sunday spot — and we seek to present a diverse range of opinions and perspectives.
That is something often lost in this age of Internet news and hundreds of cable stations. The marketplace of ideas is so vast in the 21st century that consumers have no trouble finding opinions to echo theirs, regardless of how ridiculous those opinions might be. This, overall, is a good thing, yet there are drawbacks — and I’m not talking only about the anti-vaxxer movement.
With the marketplace being so extensive, many people are more than willing to engage in confirmation bias, seeking out and embracing only those opinions that reinforce their previously held beliefs. There’s nothing new about this; as Greek philosopher Thucydides wrote some 2,500 years ago, “for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.”
I’m no Greek philosopher, but I think that means we are inclined to listen to what we want to hear. These days, that is easier than ever.
Which, I suppose, brings us back to Sowell, who probably is the most conservative of the regular columnists we choose to run. As RationalWiki.com surmised, “He is from the Chicago School of economics, in the same vein as Milton Friedman, with the important distinction of Sowell being much crazier than Friedman ever was.”
That might be a little harsh, but it’s funny, so I thought I would share.
A libertarian view
Sowell embraces a libertarian view of the world, and he frequently takes an anti-Obama stance. In this, he has many kindred spirits. But on more than one occasion in the past, Sowell has equated the president to Hitler or called him a fascist, an absurd comparison that damages the columnist’s credibility. I have not run across such a column during my time as Editorial Page editor, but I know The Columbian has not published those columns.
Which serves as a segue into a short discussion about free speech. You see, some people think that not allowing a columnist — or anybody else — to espouse nutty ideas in the newspaper is a violation of free speech, which only highlights the critics’ misunderstanding of the issue. Columnists and letter writers are free to say whatever they like, and we are free to decide whether to publish it. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without consequences; it means you can shout whatever you like from your front porch.
But I digress. The point is that Thomas Sowell and all the columnists we choose to publish are part of a design to present a diverse range of opinions about a diverse range of topics. I think that is important. Even if you believe a columnist is a little nutty, perhaps you can learn something from them. And that would be OK.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
