Nothing Protects the Disadvantaged Like Truth — Which is What Makes This NY Times Columnist So Dangerous

By Tom Gilson Published on September 26, 2018

Michelle Goldberg is the enemy she abhors. A left wing New York Times columnist, she’s written lately about our “rotten ruling class,” as if she weren’t part of the power elite herself. Like all liberals she claims to be a friend to the disadvantaged. But no one who has such a low regard for truth could be.

“Obviously,” she opens one column, “I believe Christine Blasey Ford.” It’s because Blasey [the surname she prefers to use] has done “everything possible” to substantiate her claim — starting with telling her therapist about it, thirty years after the alleged fact. She also took a polygraph test — rarely admissible in court. And this one was arranged by her own lawyer. That’s a pretty low standard for “everything possible.”

Goldberg says she seems credible, too, because “since this story broke, much of the public debate has been less about whether her accusations are true than whether they are relevant.”

Yes, she really said that. People she hangs around with, along with perhaps a few conservative columnists, are asking whether Blasey’s story matters; therefore the story is likely true. Could there be any evidence more thin than that? Where, I wonder, is Goldberg’s commitment to chasing down the truth, whatever that truth may be?

The Oppressed Should Fear

Liberals and progressives like Goldberg claim to be on the side of the oppressed. The truly oppressed should fear such claims. They should always fear when people with power willingly set aside truth in pursuit of power — even when they do it, supposedly, to help the oppressed.

And there’s been a lot of that going on the past few weeks. Few Democrat leaders have called for their party to examine Blasey’s charge soberly and with careful attention to the standards of evidence. For them, it’s just “obvious” the charge is true. After all, says Goldberg, Blasey “has done everything possible to substantiate her claim.” She told a therapist about it, some 30 years after the alleged event. What more could you ask?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

This disregard for truth is the worst thing that could happen to the disadvantaged. For one of two principles will decide almost any such dispute: truth or power. We can agree to pursue the truth to the best of our ability, and hold ourselves accountable to do what’s right. Either that, or we can arm-wrestle to see who wins. Or start a war. Or (between those extremes) wage a battle of bitter, explosive rhetoric, using the courts, using lies, and dominating public opinion by the sheer weight of institutional power.

To Protect the Disadvantaged, Pursue Truth

If it’s not the truth that decides a matter, then it’s power. And those who lack power — the disadvantaged among us — ought not be naive enough to think that people with power, lacking accountability to truth, have their best interests in mind.

Of course the nation must be run by persons with power. The Founders recognized this, and so wrote our Constitution to spread that power as broadly as they could make it. They also assured us freedom of speech and press, obviously expecting the press to hold politicians accountable to the facts.

Nothing protects the oppressed like a commitment to truth.

If Goldberg really were for the disadvantaged, she would use her position with The Times to do just that. She’d do all she could to prevent the Senate from harming a man on false pretenses. She’d do it even if she disagreed with him. Not that she should side with him, but that she should insist on an impartial examination of all the evidence, long before declaring it’s “obvious” that he’s guilty. She would know nothing is so dangerous to the disadvantaged as the person who says, “It’s okay if I fudge the facts. I’m on your side.” She’d know that in the long run, nothing protects the oppressed like a commitment to truth.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • John A.

    Political conservatives – and most especially Christian conservatives – better understand we are not in the fight of our lives… we are in a fight FOR our lives. This grotesque circus must be fought against. The left is out to destroy us. Today it’s Brett Kavanaugh, tomorrow it’s someone else. Truth gets in line behind the ultimate goal… power. Read Psalm 56 and 59, this is not a new battle. Today’s left-wing are useful idiots for the true adversary. Ultimately it remains a spiritual fight. The enemy comes to steal, kill and destroy.

  • Ray

    Since when is public opinion anything to do about the truth? Does public reaction prove credibility? If so, how so?

  • Ray

    We do need to ask, “Who is being oppressed here? Is it the nominee, or is it the accuser?” Did Dr.Ford just have to speak up to save the nation?

    So whose case would one think he should want to plead? This is one where we really don’t know the facts, but where would one be inclined to start? I suppose one would start with whoever came to him first, right?

    Is this matter even relevant?

  • Ray

    Seems to me that the American people, the voters are being oppressed. Who is there that has nothing of their past, even going back 40 years or so? I think of all the good conservative constitutional constructionists who will be reluctant to run for any kind of office because of all this. Seems to me that Constitutionally minded people, would not bring up a thing like this, only a deep state follower would.

  • Ray

    Worse than jury rigging.

  • JP

    The left’s reasoning can easily be applied to them. If you don’t need facts to support your accusations then we can accuse anyone we want to and be believed.
    PS- if there are no facts from Ford that supports what she is accusing Bret of then she is lying.

    • Andrew Mason

      No the Left holds that facts should be suppressed when it pertains to them, and all accusations denied as partisan hit jobs. A couple of conservative newspapers are seeking to get information on the Ellison divorce – I understand there may be references to violence. Despite the records ostensibly being public Ellison is seeking to prevent the information being released. Obviously the plebs have no right to know about the affairs of their betters.

  • Ray

    It seemed to me that it was a good time to look at some things from Titus. I’m looking at verse 6 of chapter one, and I wondering if there is a time limit on “being blameless”. Then naturally, there has to be some kind of verification of anything pertaining to blame. I’m just wondering what the time limit might be.

    I also think of Saul who was called to be an apostle.

    One of the important reasons we need elders is because of things mentioned in verse 10 of this chapter.

  • Ray

    I feel disadvantaged whenever deep state followers lie in wait to ambush, and imagine deceitful things.

Is Your Heart Heavy? God Knew It Would Be
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us