The con routine routine

Jim Lindgren (via InstaPundit), notes a fascinating outburst from liberal author Gary Wills, when the latter was asked about Michael Bellesiles (famous forger of anti-gun statistics, who was awarded the Bancroft Prize for his fraud):

In April 2002, I asked Wills after a lecture at Northwestern what he thought of the book then. He replied, "I was took. The book is a fraud."

During the CSPAN2 interview, the first part of Wills's statement to me was mentioned to him and he was asked for a comment. Wills responded that "a lot us were" taken, including the Bancroft Prize judges. Wills said that Bellesiles was "very convincing," but "he went a step too far"; Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives." Wills said that there was "a lot of good, solid evidence" in the book, and Bellesiles didn't have to do that. Then Wills said: "People get taken by very good con men." Of course, this is stronger language than the sort I try to use about Bellesiles myself.

It's stronger language than I'd use too, although it's certainly the truth. The problem is, "con man" is a label -- an ad hominem attack which, while technically true enough, does much to let Wills and others off the hook.

While Bellesiles may be a con man, the point is that there are many others like him who did the same thing (fraudulent research coupled with bogus statistics), who have been rewarded and honored for it. But unlike Bellesiles, they haven't been "officially" exposed -- so they'd sue the hell out of anyone who called them a "con man."

It's all part of their ongoing con of those who want to be "conned." If your lies are plausible, and if they help a particular side, well, that "side" will praise you, write wonderful things about you (like Gary Wills), and see to it that at least you advance in your career. If your lies are good enough, maybe you'll even receive high honors or awards. At that point, there's an investment in the lies, and those who want the lies to be true will do their damnedest to defend them.

If the lies ever are uncovered, there will be a massive ad hominem counterattack against those who uncover them, and if it turns out that the lies are utterly irredeemable and can't be ignored, then and only then will the wrath be turned against the once-rewarded liar. He's then a "con man." And the ones who so desperately wanted to believe him, who launched vicious attacks on all who refused to be conned, why, suddenly they're victims! And they have every right to be furious, of course.

(If you believe them....)

Who's really being conned is almost beside the point.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: I'm almost tempted to quote W.C. Fields and P.T. Barnum about how "you can't cheat an honest man," but the con artist in me insists on the appearance of innocence. And bewilderment.

posted by Eric on 01.03.05 at 10:30 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1885








March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits