The New Alchemist: The Pundit Who Makes Gold From Nothing

This morning I emailed someone unknown to me, and in that brief correspondence I mentioned the speculation industry. No, this is not that industry wherein investors risk capital on dubious projects; nor is it the industry of psychics lifting dark veils off of even darker futures. I'm talking about the industry of punditry, specifically that punditry built entirely around speculation; around auguring through the clutter and veneer of political life and deciphering what was, is, and is to come, with Ivy League clairvoyance. And it is no small fact that this industry is about money, about lots of money. No small fortune can be had if one speculates with aplomb and just the right touch (and no doubt with a good agent and publisher). Secret motives, hidden agendas, abstruse conspiracies, encrypted memos in plain language–these are the fodder for the fomenting oracles.

In his very readable and often brilliant little book, Bobos in Paradise, David Brooks, commenting on the promotion of one's intellectual capital for financial gain, observes the intellectual essayist intent on getting published:

"To get the most attention, the essay should be wrong. Logical essays are read and understood. But an illogical or wrong essay will prompt dozens of other writers to rise and respond, thus giving the author mounds of publicity. Yale professor Paul Kennedy had a distinguished but unglamorous career under his belt when he wrote The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, predicting American decline. He was wrong, and hundreds of other commentators rose to say so, thus making him famous and turning his book into a bestseller. Francis Fukuyama wrote an essay called 'The End of History,' which seemed wrong to people who read only the title. Thousands of essayists wrote pieces pointing out that history had not ended, and Fukuyama became a global sensation."

Irrespective of Brooks' cynicism, which I take as proof of his vivacity, his comments invite me to speculate about those who speculate. Is it possible that people intentionally mislead merely for self-aggrandizement? Is it possible that people play the devil's advocate for devilish financial gain and notoriety?

Much of me says that it must be so. I cannot believe that Noam Chomsky, speculator par excellence, believes what comes forth from his mouth, not when his gnosticism collapses before evidence and reasons to the contrary of whatever it is he asserts. Does filmmaker Michael Moore, who is Chomsky-esque in his style, really believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the Bush family and the Saudis?

Such mendacity reminds me of a Seinfeld character, that man who would make an absurd wager with women solely so he could lose the bet, and yet win a date. "If I am wrong that Dustin Hoffman was a male lead in Star Wars, I'll buy you dinner," he'd say, which was a ruse for actually asking the woman out for dinner directly. It was a lose/win, win/win situation for the man every time.

We know that people seek gain, much of it financial but often political, by stating untruths that sound so very true. For instance, when Howard Dean ran for president last year he did so touting that he was the ONLY Washington outsider, a mere Vermonter living among dairymen, who was running for president. Curiously, Dean the Outsider not only could tell exactly what cabal was being formed in the Oval Office, he knew with certainty the very motives of President Bush's heart. Amazingly Dean gained traction with his wizard's talents, though he could have no unique vision from Montpelier. The consummate outsider that Dean was cannot have an insider's view. If he does, well, then he is just another insider (that truly untenable conclusion logic reaches so easily).

Bu what we don't know, though Brooks opens our eyes to its possibility, is whether people intentionally mislead solely to exploit a market, through book sales and speaking engagements, merely to get wealthy. Is there such a conspiracy?

(It is interesting to note that Noam Chomsky, the anti-capitalist ultra-leftist, has a $1.2 million vacation home in Wellfleet, a desirable and well-to-do town on Cape Cod. See this piece for more information on Mr. Chomsky's speculations. As Brooks says elsewhere in his book: "Intellectual life is a mixture of careerism and altruism ... the ... intellectual reconciles the quest for knowledge with the quest for the summer house.")

How is it that we permit these folks, on right and left–yes, even conservative Mr. Brooks–to make great career gains through pontificating on the unknowable? If an indictment is sealed, why do we care what Susan Estrich or Dick Morris think about what cannot be known? If we are a people committed to reason, logic and facts, why do we countenance the speculators profiting from our need to know, or even our need to win? Their only product is to offer what they know, which is nothing, in words that sound as if they might indeed know something.

Perhaps one final example will suffice. You've heard constant "analysis" and speculation about the alleged leak of a CIA operative's name. You have heard about why the Bush White House committed this heinous crime (though most people believe that no crime could have been committed when no law was broken); that Bush and Co. did this as payback, to defame a man, Joseph Wilson, who was critical of White House policies. But did you know that according to Friday's Wall Street Journal, Robert Novak, the first reporter to print the name of Valerie Plame (the alleged operative), called the CIA before going to press? Did you know that the CIA confirmed that Valerie Plame did indeed work for the CIA? And did you know that it was common knowledge in Washington, even listed in Who's Who, that Ms. Plame was Morris' wife? And did you know that the CIA, when contacted by Mr. Novak, could have invoked a Do-Not-Publish position and chose not to?

(FYI: The Thursday and Friday op-ed pages of the WSJ are award-winning excellent regarding this whole affair.)

But alas, what do we get ad infinitum? We get speculation about a corrupt White House, with some suggesting that this is the most corrupt White House in history, when in fact a deep examination of the facts points to corruption at the CIA.

All this to say that profit is to be found everywhere, even among bad prophets.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.