Wampum

Hold That Thought

Trying cases to juries often involves choosing between alternative theories of the case. The great trial attorney Bobby Lee Cook once said that there are only two defenses to a murder charge. The first is “I didn’t do it.” The second is “the s.o.b. deserved it.”

While either of those arguments may prevail, it is necessary to choose between them. To argue in the alternative (e.g. “I didn’t do it, but if I did the s.o.b. deserved it”) merely convinces the jury that neither is true.

I was reminded of the necessity of choosing a theory of the case by a recent column by Stephen Moore. Moore argues in favor of higher speed limits. I found Moore’s argument unconvincing for two reasons.

First, Moore seems to be engaged in hyperbole (or perhaps a bad case of honest assessment). He begins his column as follows:

I've always argued that the two most important reforms that the Republican Congress has passed to make life here in the United States better were the capital gains tax cut and the repeal of the federal 55mph speed limit law.

Rarely have I seen a more succinct condemnation of an entire political party. If after ten years in power, the two most important reforms of the GOP are the cut in the capital gains tax and the repeal of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit, their argument for retaining power is pretty thin.

Secondly, Moore undercuts his credibility by making inconsistent arguments. He has trouble remembering the argument he made in the second paragraph of his column by the time he reaches the end. In the second paragraph, Moore argues that that the increase in the speed limits has provided beneficial savings of time:

Today almost all states have gotten rid of the "double nickel" limits and have raised their speed limits on local and interstate highways to 65 or 75 mph. This has led to shorter commuter times for those of us who travel or commute by car and more time on the job, at work or at our kids' soccer games.

Shorter commute times would certainly be a benefit. The increase in the speed limit can shorten commute times only if drivers travel at higher speeds. By his next to last paragraph, Moore appears to have forgotten that he made that argument.

Also, higher speed limits haven't increased deaths because speeds have not increased significantly on the highways. People were already driving well over the posted limits even when we had 55 mph limits. The 55 mph speed limit law was probably the most disobeyed law in American history.

Thus, Moore’s argument is that the increase in the speed limit has been one of the two greatest reforms of the Republican Congress because of all the time saved by driving faster but that higher speed limits do not cause more fatalities because people drive at the same speed. In essence, that is the “I didn’t do it, but if I did, the s.o.b. deserved it” argument.

Is it really too much to expect a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute to be able to hold a thought for the length of an entire newspaper column? Apparently so.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at December 2, 2003 11:25 AM | TrackBack