How Not to Make an Argument

For a few semesters I taught college freshman composition. I was not entirely well suited to the job, but I did take a certain pride in promoting something important to me--the necessity of critical thinking, discerning intellectual distinctions, and of making a credible argument.

Conservative commentator Cal Thomas offers us an example of how not to do this. Thomas writes on Foxnews.com that the civil rights movement was "hijacked" by sources other than Glenn Beck. Yet after making the unsupported claim that "liberal Democrats keep African-American children locked up in underperforming schools", Thomas provides a vague list of social ills afflicting African Americans. He then follows with a sweeping generalization concerning what "Conservatives" support and what "Liberals" support. Finally, without any reference to the above, Thomas blames Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Eleanor Holmes Norton for hijacking the civil rights movement.

Keep hope alive! Thomas cries, ending his piece.

It is hard to keep hope alive when this sort of thing passes for
a. Thoughtful
b. Informed
c. Critical (in the best use of the term)

It is an interesting question, however, as to who gets to define things. The power to define has long been associated with the ruling class. Martin Luther King and his followers claimed the right to define Black experience in America. This definition was at odds, obviously, with the position of the privleged white majority. Today my question surrounding the Glenn Beck controversy is--who is allowed to define "civil rights movement"? Does the definition change over time? Critics of Beck claim that he is taking a movement which was defined by Black experience and twisting it into a label white, tea party conservatives. How fluent are the definitions and to what degree does history matter in this debate?

In any event, we need to do better than Cal Thomas.