In Defense of the Rule of Law: Peanut Recall
As we follow the PCA recalls, we are reminded that in matters of great public concern, some resort to rhetorical extremes. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Richard Hofstadter, described this tradition in his 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which essay was recently revisited in “Politics for Grown Ups,” by Paul Hond, Columbia (Winter 2008-09).
While such tactics garner attention – Joe McCarthy was front-page news – there is a price to be paid, and not just by those who are the targets of a “cruelly reckless character assassin.” As Hond explains, the paranoid advocate damages his campaign, as he “doesn’t so much invent wild ideas, then, as undermine sound ones, alienating people with his exaggerations and ultimately discrediting his own cause.”
We are seeing examples of the paranoid style in recent writings about the PCA recall. Even before the facts are fleshed out, some insist that first-degree murder (or perhaps only manslaughter) occurred, with executives, technicians, customers and regulators acting as aiders and abettors of these murderous acts. Moreover, whatever happened at PCA, say these advocates, is replicated in each company throughout the food industry.
Thus, it should not surprise that today a PCA critic reminded us of the recent Chinese executions of food safety regulators, and suggested that something similar (“figuratively”) should be done here.
Let’s allow the rule of law and its procedural safeguards to play out. Sometimes speculation is simply wrong. News that a peanut shipment had been rejected by Canada led to the supposition that this product had been sold in the United States. It wasn’t. The FDA has confirmed that the shipment at issue was rejected because of small metal fragments – and the product was destroyed.
While the recall proceeds, we should allow the regulators and prosecutors to do their work. Facts will be gathered and disclosed and we’ll see who knew what, and when they knew it. Until then, fanning the flames of outrage with unfounded inferences and broadsides against entire industries causes thoughtful readers – the people we need to reach – to step back from our message.
