Federal Judiciary

The key word here is ?entitled.? In today?s entitlement-crazy Washington, not only do folks believe that about half the country is entitled to other people?s money and health-insurance policies, they feel they are entitled to their own facts to support their claim to other people?s money and health-insurance policies.

Not only that, they believe they are entitled to their own facts to describe the character and conduct of their political opponents. The Democratic party collectively smeared scores of millions of American tea-party participants as racist, homophobic, violent terrorists in the absence of a single verified fact in support of even one such incident being attributable to a single individual. Nor did their media pals even bother with the word ?alleged.?

At a more personal level, two prominent liberal magazines led their readers to believe (as evidenced by multiple reader comments) that in one of my columns last week, I plagiarized Winston Churchill?s most famous speech as my own -- despite the fact that I expressly stated immediately before and immediately after the paraphrase that I was paraphrasing Churchill?s ?Finest Hour? speech from June 1940. I even stated that I apologized for paraphrasing his immortal words. The New Republic did have the decency to correct that misimpression after I wrote to complain. The other magazine I will leave in its obscurity.

Not only was Moynihan wrong, but so was John Adams when he said, ?Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence (?Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,? December 1770).

Though he may have been correct technically -- the facts cannot be altered in the eyes of God -- he was wrong to the extent that the facts can be altered in the eyes of the public.

The advocates of the new ?thing? that was passed a week ago Sunday and signed into law by the chief executive claimed it would reduce the deficit by $140 billion over the first ten years. No informed person believes that ?fact.? Also, fairly happily, according to Sunday?s Washington Post poll, 65 percent of the public thinks the new law will increase the budget deficit.

Still, that leaves 35 percent (or close to 100 million Americans, counting the kids) who either believe the incorrect ?fact,? think the law will be budget-neutral, or are otherwise confused.

So, currently, the fact that it will increase the deficit by at least half a trillion dollars (probably much more) rather than reduce it by $140 billion is just 65 percent stubborn. It will be interesting to see how stubborn that fact will be seven months from now. How effectively the advocates of the non-fact ?communicate? to the people -- and how effective the rest of us do -- will determine whether it will be more or less than just 65 percent stubborn. And remember, American elections tend to be won or lost on the margin. If 30 percent of the voters are motivated by incorrect ?facts? to vote, that may well be enough for them to be the winners -- who, as many cynics claim, get to write history.

Of course, it is not a novelty of our time that there is a struggle over convincing the public of the truth. As has been said, ?A lie is halfway ?round the world before truth has got its boots on.? (Attention liberal journalists: I am not claiming that phrase as my own. It is a loose translation from Virgil?s Aeneid: ?Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius alium,? which itself was paraphrased by Shakespeare in the introduction of Henry IV, Part 2.)

So, we have a jolly seven-month public match over both economic and political theory -- and the honest facts -- with the advocates of the monstrosity that we dare not call by its name. Last week I quite upset more than 800 digital ?commenters? at the Huffington Post -- and thousands of other friendly, if often obscene and contemptuous, e-mailers -- because I used the word ?socialism? to describe a government-designed, -taxed, -regulated and -mandated program the enforcement of which will require 16,000 new IRS agents.

We?re in for quite a brawl. Note to the Democratic party?s talking-points-drafting people: I am using the word ?brawl? as a metaphor. I am not calling for violence against your dainty selves, so you can come out from pretending to be trembling under your desks and bask in the physical safety of debating Republicans, conservatives, tea-party folks, and other fine Americans. After all, when was the last time you saw thousands of us filthy-rich, middle-aged, paunchy white guys from gated communities riot? (With the possible exception of the first day of the 30-percent-off sale on Bermuda shorts at the country club?s golf shop: ?Where are the 40s?!?)

Come out, come out, wherever you are, my little pretties. We want to debate the facts, not duck your mud balls. What are you afraid of? Admittedly, the truth may hurt you -- but only metaphorically. And, as the phrase goes, the truth will set us, even you, free.

-- Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. © 2010 Creators.com.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on March 31, 2010 (boomark / email).