OPINION:
This newspaper published a column last week offering a simple and correct argument: Imposing a 25% tax (or tariff, if you prefer) on crude oil imported from Canada would lead to an increase in the cost of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. that American refiners make from Canadian crude oil. The column also noted, correctly, that such a tax would require a complete rearrangement of the supply chain that results in gasoline being sold in states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Such a rearrangement would impose significant costs of its own.
All of that seems — and is — obvious enough. Nevertheless, the column received 20 comments from various readers, about five times the usual amount of commentary. The commenters made several assertions. The author is an idiot. The author doesn’t understand refining processes or the oil industry. All sides would make necessary adjustments. President Trump is probably just using the threat of tariffs as leverage (which the author wrote in the column).
Interestingly, none of the commenters said the idea that taxes on Canadian crude would lead directly to higher gasoline prices for American consumers was wrong, which was the entire thesis (and the headline) of the column.
I thought about those comments as I read media accounts of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
With the notable exception of Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, none of the Republican senators seemed very interested in addressing the central thesis of Mr. Kennedy’s career, which is that childhood vaccines have done more harm than good. They probably demurred from that line of questioning because each of them fully understands that the data is clear: Vaccines save lives, a lot of lives.
Moreover, Republican senators studiously avoided all of the ancillary issues associated with Mr. Kennedy: That he is a rapacious trial lawyer, that his personal life has been mostly wreckage and ruin, that until about 10 minutes ago, he was in favor of abortion without restrictions.
Is there any doubt that if the color of jerseys were reversed — if Mr. Kennedy were the nominee of a Democratic president — the Republican senators would be on him like a pack of hungry wolves? Similarly, can there be any doubt that if the previous president took action that resulted in increased gasoline prices, the howling from the right side of the political spectrum would be deafening?
All of that leads to one unhappy conclusion: Partisan preferences, taken beyond a certain point, degrade one’s ability to acknowledge objective truths. Imposing taxes on Canadian crude oil would, all else being equal, increase the price of the gasoline made from crude oil. It doesn’t matter who imposes those taxes. The medical efficacy of most vaccines is not really in question. Someone who can’t tell the difference between Medicare and Medicaid is probably not a good choice to run both programs.
If political preferences continue to occlude society’s ability to recognize and act on objective truths, the American system will break down quickly. To borrow from G.K. Chesterton, when belief in objective truths gives way, “Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer.”
In other words, intellectual anarchy eventually leads to physical anarchy.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.