McCarthyism in the Toronto Star

Letter to the Toronto Star. unpublished obviously*

Re Uncommon wisdom on Morgentaler, Comment, July 22

Rob Mitchell's opinion piece should be compulsory reading for all students of political science and communication. It illustrates the many tactics of McCarthyism.

The first lesson is avoid the issue. To do this, Mitchell employs argumentum ad hominem --- attack the messenger, not the message. This appeal to feelings rather than intellect insults the reader.

He then drags out another rhetorical trick of McCarthyism --- the Big Smear. By pointing out defects in the Catholic Church, he implies that automatically the Church's pro-life advocacy is wrong. This is a variation of the Big Lie and Straw Man devices --- that by by implying defeat of a non-message, one has destroyed the real message.

Mitchell wants his readers to believe that only Catholics oppose abortion. This technique --- Isolate the Opposition, is another tool of McCarthyism. Yet, polls consistently indicate that a majority of Canadians favour at least some restriction on access to abortion. Mitchell belittles their right to express these views.

Using the Big Smear technique, Mitchell attempts to silence all opposition by the egregious allegation that anyone opposed Dr. Henry Morgentaler's Order of Canada is anti-Semitic. Lacking evidence for this calumny, as authority he cites (wait for it) a Montreal newspaper cartoonist. His style shows an inability to deal with differing yet honestly-held opinions.

To bolster the other side of the argument, Mitchell employs what every propagandist recognizes as the Rosy Glow. He tells us that Dr. Morgentaler is a tiny, frail, 85-year-old man, and a holocaust survivor. All this may be true, but quite irrelevant to the issue.

We continue to wonder if columnists, cartoonists, and selected letters to the editor provide the shield for the expression of the publisher's own opinions, while maintaining the pretense of journalistic objectivity.

* Obviously, because the Toronto Star censors comment that goes against any of its agenda, such as, in this case,
pro-abortion.

The promised contentment

In its November 1968 issue, Mechanix Illustrated informed the world, "People will have more time for leisure activities in the year 2008. The average work day is about four hours."

The sixties was a time which Prime Minister Lester Pearson described as one of "rising expectations." This spirit of optimism carried on through the primeministership of Pierre Trudeau.

Then what happened? What is now happening?

How would the Wright brothers react if told that within 60 years of their first flight, man would set foot on the moon?

How would Graham Bell react if told that in the next century people will communicate around the world and into space?

How would Henry Ford react if told that in his century there would be millions of cars around the world available at reasonable cost?

How would John Maynard Keynes react if told that between 1950 and 1975 the Gross World Product would double?

How would people still living today react if told when they were still young that in their lifetime there would be machines to wash our dishes, to wash clothes and dry them, to offer instant world-wide communication, to record music and make it available to all, to help diagnose and help cure diseases which then even had no names?

No doubt, they would all think enviously of us. How great life will be. What luxury these devices will bring with the reduced the work week. With the drudgery abolished, work will be more interesting. Life will be great. What else could result with all those time-saving devices but more time to relax and enjoy life?

Instead of easing the burdens of life, each technological advance seems to increase stress in our lives. We work overtime to produce time-saving devices. What has happened to the time saved by these devices? It is estimated that the caveman worked no more than 20 hours a week to produce the necessities of life. Today, some of work three times those hours and produce less.