Two op-ed stories in my local newspaper today caught my attention. Not just because I was interested in the subject matter, but because the presentations provided a lesson for the observant reader.
The authors of both articles were generally right in their primary thrust. But there were serious errors in the thinking of both that point up a major problem in our understanding of the issues.
In one, Jim Boren of the Fresno Bee wrote that the immigration question will not be solved by the politicians because they have a vested interest in keeping the issue alive. There's a lot to agree with there.
However, he goes on to say that the legislation that was twice offered was killed by special interests, instead of by the public, which did not trust the government to control the border, and did not want illegal immigrants granted citizenship. The political elite and too many of the media just can't get these facts through their heads. It wasn't special interests. It was a bad bill.
The second article, by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, says that the Bush administration and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are living in a fantasy world in hoping that deprivations caused by isolating the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip will lead to a revolt by the Palestinians in favor of the "moderate" Fatah. It's more likely, he writes, that the uneducated Palestinians would turn to even more radical leadership. He's right.
However, he then makes a big mistake that displays the incredible blinders worn by those inside the Beltway. The solution, Diehl writes, is for "Israel and Hamas to start to come together, however provisionally."
Huh? Let's see. Hamas has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Israel really doesn't want Hamas legitimized in any way, shape or form. So just how are the two sides to come together? Well, the writer suggest a "full-fledged cease fire." You either have a cease fire or you don't. There's no level of degree. Hamas and Israel have had a number of cease fires, and none have held.
Diehl also suggests that Hamas might want to release the Israeli soldier it kidnapped a year ago. Hamas has had plenty of chances to release the poor guy in the past 12 months, and plenty of reason. Hasn't happened yet. And it won't.
Many, many, op-ed articles are like that. A sharp analysis of a problem is undone by the wrong solution. Or the writer's exposition of an issue is 75 percent right, but the 25 percent that's incorrect ruins the entire effort. What's scary is that when the writer falls short, it's usually on something -- like an inability to concede that We the People were right or a desire to talk with an enemy no matter how intractable -- that gives comfort to elite ideology.
(Washington Post requires registration, so I just passed along the basic newspaper link ... jim)
