I like a good argument. That’s been true ever since I was a member of the debating club at Teaneck High School. We faced off against teams from other schools on subjects like socialized medicine and international control of nuclear weapons. We worked hard to research the facts and build persuasive cases, for and against, and we prided ourselves in exposing errors and logical fallacies in our opponents’ arguments.
Now the word “argument” seems to have a different meaning, with little connection to facts or logic. At least, that’s the conclusion I’ve come to after studying the red booklet called “Massachusetts Information for Voters: 2024 Ballot Questions” that arrived in the mail recently from Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin.
This publication is supposed to help voters decide whether to vote yes or no on the five statewide initiative questions on this year’s November ballot. It does a poor job.
The booklet does have some important information, including summaries of the five questions and the full text of each proposed law (good luck navigating the nine pages of the law on unionization of rideshare drivers in Question 3). But then come the “arguments,” pro and con, which “are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions.”
Some of these opinions are signed; some are not. In every case, we are told nothing about the writer and his or her reputation or personal stake in the question being voted on. What we are told is this: “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments.”
Read that last sentence again. It says that the “information” in these statements, produced at taxpayer expense and sent to every voter in the state, could all be lies. No one has bothered to check.
The argument against Question 5, on raising the minimum wage for tipped workers, begins: “This question is funded by a radical group from California.” Really? Is that true? What kind of group? What makes them “radical”? You’ll find no answers in the red book, only wildly contradictory assertions on both sides, with no sources cited.
The argument for Question 4, on legalizing psychedelic mushrooms, says they are safe and effective medicines; the argument against says they are dangerous and could kill you. It’s impossible to judge which side is more true.
The unsigned argument against Question 2, on eliminating the MCAS test as a graduation requirement, says it’s “a radical and untested proposal.” That I happen to know is untrue. I edited the National Research Council’s exhaustive study of that question, which concluded that standardized tests should never be used in that high-stakes way.
But facts like that don’t seem to matter anymore, as we see increasingly at every level of political life in this country. All you need is an opinion, strongly stated (try adding some choice vulgarities!), and even if it is utterly fact-free it can be broadcast everywhere — not only on cable news or Facebook, but even by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
