What I got wrong in 2014
A look back at a year's worth of opinions, highlighting two entries into the hall of shame
Talk might be cheap — but nothing is cheaper than an online opinion. Everyone has an opinion, and anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account can blast it out to the world. If the opinion touches a nerve, expresses or distills a viewpoint better or more cleverly than anyone else's — and if it gets "liked" or retweeted enough times to go viral — then it might become an opinion that sets the national or even global elite conversation for a few hours or days.
In a world filled with amateur pundits pecking out their opinions on keyboards and touch screens for fun and for free, I consider myself extraordinarily fortunate to get paid to write.
I haven't gone back through the archives of The Week to count up precisely how many columns I wrote in 2014, but it's probably somewhere between 150 and 170. That's a lot of opinions. Is it even conceivable that I would be proud of all of them?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
I'm actually relieved that after all that writing, there are only two columns I would take back if I could.
The first was a column from February in which I made the ill-advised decision to name Lyndon Johnson "the worst modern president."
I stand by every criticism I make of Johnson in that column. Vietnam was a monumental mistake — arguably the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. In domestic politics, Johnson's decision to adopt a wildly inflated rhetoric ("war on poverty," "Great Society") and then design policies around those overly ambitious concepts did a lot to discredit liberalism and empower the right-wing populists who have dominated the Republican Party — and politics in America — ever since.
But as several intelligent critics pointed out in response to that column, Johnson's decisive role in bringing an end to Jim Crow in the American South deserved far more than a passing mention in a single sentence. That the function of this sentence was to dispense with the significance of the Civil Rights Act in order to strengthen my indictment of Johnson only made it more galling.
The fact is that Johnson's commitment to using the federal government to dismantle segregation, and his willingness to cajole, threaten, sweet talk, and twist the arms of senators and congressmen to get civil rights legislation passed, were indispensable. No one else could have done it. And that should have given me far more pause in issuing a global condemnation of his presidency.
I'd go further: The fact that I was willing to condemn Johnson's presidency so sweepingly is a sign that I'm sometimes less attuned to racial injustice in American history than I should be. (My subsequent columns on Ta-Nehisi Coates' extraordinary reparations essay and the events following the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson were, in part, efforts to make up for that failing.)
The problem with my second embarrassing column was very different. Written in September, "Libertarianism's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea" suffered from a single fatal defect: the idea it attributed to libertarianism isn't really a libertarian idea at all. It's a debased, distorted, degraded version of a libertarian idea.
A column that pointed out how the controversial, contestable, but also sophisticated libertarian idea of "spontaneous order" became debased, distorted, and degraded could have been great. It could have showed how the idea — which has roots in John Locke, Adam Smith, and Friedrich Hayek — has merged with unrelated currents in American culture (Paine's enthusiasm for beginning the world anew; Emersonian individualism; the myth of the self-made man) to become a comical ideology of anarcho-capitalism that shows up in various forms in our time, but that no intellectually serious libertarian espouses.
But I didn't write that column. Instead, I wrote a column in which I elided the distinction between the libertarian idea and its caricature. I should have known better. Indeed, in a few lines of the column, I showed that I did, writing that "careful readers of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government and Smith's The Wealth of Nations will find much subtler views than the positions I've presented here."
Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to solve the problem — not when the whole point of the column (driven home in its screaming headline) was to pin the unsubtle views onto libertarians, and not when I explicitly pinned them onto Hayek in a sloppy summary of his thought.
With a focused rewrite, I'm convinced I could have used 90 percent of the material in the published column for one that was much more careful and accurate — one that still made an important point about the dangers of believing (as too many Americas apparently do) that order can emerge spontaneously from social, cultural, and economic chaos.
But that wouldn't have been a column about libertarianism, as the column I actually wrote purported to be.
That's a pretty significant flaw, and it's one I regret.
The internet rewards glibness, especially when it comes to opinion. But for those glibly expressed opinions to be more than mere spouting off, they need to be informed, intelligent, smart. I pride myself on finding the right balance between shooting off my mouth and writing overly cautious academic treatises. Most of the time I think I succeed.
But not always. And certainly not the two times I got it wrong in 2014.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a former contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.
-
The best dog-friendly hotels around the UK
The Week Recommends Take a break with your four-legged friend in accommodation that offers you both a warm welcome
By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published
-
Shopping trolleys: the new must-have accessory
Speed Read Sales are soaring as new designs help shed that old-fashioned image
By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published
-
5 ways to help the environment while on vacation
The Week Recommends An afternoon of planting trees could be the best part of your trip
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published