Admitting When You Were Wrong

I Admit It, I Was Wrong; More Pundits Should Be Held to Account Too

Back in May, I wrote the following:

On Thursday, Title 42 as it relates to COVID will expire. Title 42 was created to address public health and social welfare and grants the government the ability to take emergency action in numerous ways, including to “stop the introduction of communicable diseases.” While the code has been in place for decades, it was used widely beginning in March 2020 by the then-President Donald Trump Administration in order to regulate border crossings under the premise of increased COVID-19 precautions.

The Trump administration used Title 42 to override immigration law that allowed people to ask for asylum after entering illegally and said we could send them back across the border, arguing that taking migrants into custody in federal facilities would create more of a public health risk. Biden had extended this policy given that no solution to the immigration crisis at the southern border is in sight, and Republicans have no incentive to negotiate one.

As of May 9th, border states in Mexico have reported an increase of over 300k migrants who will be attempting to cross the border legally on Thursday or after, and a total of 500k is expected. Currently, they are remaining in border cities or nearby in encampments, with little access to running water or facilities, and are overwhelming the infrastructure of these border towns. This is only the start…

Come the end of Title 42, the border is simply going to be overwhelmed with people, and Customs and Border Security do not have enough people, facility and resources to handle the influx of nearly half a million people. Border cities and states do not have the capacity to accomodate that many people who will be requesting asylum and need to be housed while their cases are processed and pending. We are talking about a ballooning of the homeless, an increase in crime, a huge burden on the health care system, a lack of fundamental needs, a failure of infrastructure, and a bureaucratic catastrophe.

The response by the Biden Administration has been lackluster at best. They are aware of what is coming, have begun to mobilize necessary government resources but the volumes are wholly insufficient. Not to mention, his hands are somewhat tied since he is bound by what funding he has, and the U.S. Government is due to run out of funding by the end of the month.

It turns out, I was completely wrong. Here’s Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post this past week¹:

In May, it seemed obvious that the United States was going to face an unmanageable border crisis…In fact, as it turned out, there was no crisis. The number of encounters with migrants at the southern border actually dropped by a third, from about 7,100 per day in April to about 4,800 per day in June, according to the latest available data. Why did this happen?

It seems that the Biden administration’s plan worked. It put in place a series of measures designed to deal with the impending problem, chiefly a stiff penalty for crossing the border illegally (deportation plus a five-year ban on any reentry), coupled with expanding ways to apply for legal asylum in the migrant’s home country. It was a welcome case of well-designed policymaking a difference.

So I was completely wrong. I sounded like Chicken Little when Joe Biden had it completely under control. I had bought into partisan hype, for what seemed like rational reasons at the time and completely missed the mark. It turns out the Biden Adminstration was prepared. They knew what they were doing and managed government excellently in the face of an impending crisis, working through every obstacle existing immigration policy (and Republicans who have no incentive to fix it) threw at them. Contrast that with what the Trump Administration did for four years with the cruelty, disorganization and draconian attitude, and the Biden Administration accomplishment seems even more profound.

Now, it would be easier for me if I never acknowledged my error and just acted like I had never said it. But you see, being objectively incorrect and not admitting it is one of the major problems our society currently has.

I have no qualms at all about admitting I was wrong. In fact, in this instance, I am actually very pleased everything worked out and the only consequence is a little egg on my face. But then it occurred to me. Not many pundits ever actually do admit when they are wrong. In fact, because all they do is spout prepared remarks, party soundbites and distorted propaganda, they have no incentive EVER to admit wrong. To their minds, they are always right, facts and events be damned. If by some instance they get called out for the error in judgment, they ignore the whole thing ever happened or push it aside as the product of some miracle happenstance, the product of a variable that underscores it as an exception not the rule. Much more likely, they would just defer and pivot to a new topic.

Then it further occured to me that this in itself is a major reason for the polarization and discord in our country. It used to be that “experts” that were put on television for commentary would hedge their bets and be hesitant to make such drastic predictions or one sided statements. The result was at least an appearance of reasonableness and caution. The political center of gravity would mitigate the extent that commentators would stray, and thus the commentary would be more tempered, even moderate.

Today, its more likely they would say the most outlandishly partisan dribble; because there is no consequence ever for being wrong (their contracts with the network are still in force) they can say whatever they want and nothing will happen. It has the feel more of a negotiation or a performance akin to pro wrestling than on a reasoned thoughtful perspective of where we are and where we are going as a country. The result is that instead of people empathizing with an objective position, they empathize with the subjective position of one of the partisans, further creating this cultural divide.

In fact, that is the whole dynamic of news commentary today; pit two party loyalists against each other spouting partisan rhetoric and everyone takes a side, but nobody ever wins because nobody is ever taken to account when they are wrong and lose. Gone are the days when a single commentator could say “On the one hand…on the other….” and the person would sound rational. Not only does it bring people together to a single position from which to judge what is going on, it is cheaper because you only need one person to say it. In today’s news media, its two or more intentionally irrational positions fighting over what could be seen as “the middle.” The farther to the extremes the two come from, the bigger the argument and discord appears. It looks even more like a circus when they have multiple panels going on with five people each and everyone has to get their say in.

We are not as divided a country as our news organizations make it seem. While they go out of their way to show “the two sides of everything,” there are in fact objective positions that can be described as “good” or “better” and items that can be easily pointed at as “bad” or “worse.” The immigration “crisis” from which I commented erroneously months ago can objectively be said to have been better than I anticipated. I just wish the news media could, you know, admit when one or more of their pundits were completely off the mark and call them to account.

Because when pundits are allowed to spout ridiculousness over and over again, never being right but catering to a select group of people who clamour to hear what they want to hear, regardless of accuracy, you end up with the politics that brought us Trump and the news environment we have today.

PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories

One of the best descriptions of this dynamic, and why it fails was Jon Stewart appearing on the CNN show “Crossfire” years ago with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. It’s as true now as when this first aired almost 20 years ago. If you’ve ever seen it, you know how great Stewart skewers the format and the hosts. If you’ve never seen it, you’ll love how Stewart mocks Tucker Carlson for wearing bow ties and countering “I am not your monkey” when Tucker says Stewart should be funny.

The whole video is A+ greatness and discusses at length the issues I’m bringing up here. But what I really want to bring your attention to is one of the last things said. A person from the audience asks “Why do you think it’s so hard, or difficult, or impossible, for politicians to answer a straight simple question.” Stewart replies, “I don’t think it’s hard, I just think nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it.”

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

One of the greatest “non-apology apologies” is the phrase, “Mistakes were made.”

No less an authority on language than the late William Safire, in his Safire's Political Dictionary, devoted an entry to the oft-used phrase — describing it as "a passive-evasive way of acknowledging error while distancing the speaker from responsibility for it."

Political analyst Bill Schneider declared it to be the "past exonerative" of choice for the political class.

As On the Media has reported, "the magical construction was popularized during Watergate by Nixon spokesman Ron Ziegler." In 1973, he apologized to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, for example, saying that "mistakes were made in terms of comments" that the White House had made about the Post and the reporters.

It famously came up again in December 1986. President Reagan conceded that "mistakes were made" by his administration when it sold arms to Iran and shipped the proceeds to Contras in Nicaragua. Reagan used the phrase again a month later, in his 1987 State of the Union address.

But do you know where the phrase originated? In fact, it was Ulysses S. Grant trying to evade scrutiny for many of the corruption scandals plaguing his administration who first coined the phrase. Grant appended a note to his final annual report to Congress on December 5, 1876, acknowledging the scandals that had plagued his two terms in office with the words, 'Mistakes have been made, as all can see and I admit.' "

PurpleAmerica’s Cultural Corner

For those who really have a hard time admitting mistakes, here is a great piece by “Big Think” regarding “Why It’s Important to Admit When You Were Wrong.”

https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/why-admit-when-you-wrong/

For a more humorous view of admitting when you were wrong and making amends, here are scenes from the Seinfeld episode, “The Apology” featuring James Spader who while going through a twelve step program has to make amends, but refuses to apologize to George. Its a great episode.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

This one comes directly from me, PurpleAmerica.

“Unlike all other sites out there, and any kind of partisan hackery you may find, I assure you, all my readers, that when I am wrong on a particular issue or opinion, I will have no issue in admitting so. Saying one was wrong is not so difficult, and is often the easiest way to move forward. It’s honesty. It’s integrity. It’s progress. We need more of it in our discourse. You won’t ever find it on cable news or many substack sites today, but you will find it here on such occassions as when it is due.”

Thanks for reading and subscribing.

Like what you are seeing here at PurpleAmerica? Share and Comment. Let your friends and family know! Forward us topics you’d like us to discuss! It’s am open community here.

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/11/immigration-borders-asylum-common-sense/