Running head: CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION” 1
Critique of Walter Lippmann’s “Indispensable Opposition”
Melia Young
October 31, 2013
Heidi Barker
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
Critique of Walter Lippmann’s “Indispensable Opposition”
Summary
In his article, “The Indispensable Opposition,” Walter Lippmann (2012), a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist, explores the need for opposition to produce complete freedom of truth. This
includes the need to accept and internalize others’ opinions. In many instances, people have
difficulty accepting any opinion except their own; when they listen, it is with an air of
forbearance rather than contemplation. This is a mistake that is not conducive to finding the
truth, because in order to achieve truth it is important to discuss, even to argue. Opposition is
necessary if progression is desired, for without opposition discussion does not happen and any
hope of moving forward is vanquished. Discussion does not always produce the complete truth
or even any truth at all, but it is the only way by which any truth can be arrived at. Finding truth
is at the heart of freedom. Therefore, in order to embrace liberty discussion and finding truth
must be accepted and understood. A government—or dictatorship—that surrounds itself with
uniform thinkers gradually turns away from a desire for truth. Sometimes finding the truth
requires change, and in order for change to happen opinions must be voiced to an audience. If no
one hears an opinion, discussion cannot take place. Discussion is a large part of political liberty,
and liberty is the key to unlocking truth. The preservation of that liberty is dependent on the
individual. Lippmann concludes by once again advocating the need for opposition. “It is
indispensable” (p. 5).
Ambiguity
In his essay, “The Indispensable Opposition,” Lippmann uses very little ambiguity as he
informs the reader exactly what his opinion is, and why it is so. He is careful to include
definitions—or at least clarifications—on words or ideas that may need expansion. He does use
2
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
a slight ambiguity when he talks about “freedom.” This is an intentional ambiguity however, as
he explains that people see freedom in many different ways. In Browne and Keeleys’ (2012)
Asking the Right Questions, they expound on intentional ambiguity: “Ambiguity is not always an
accident. Those trying to persuade you are quite often aware that words have multiple
meanings” (p. 48). Intentional ambiguity usually carries a negative connotation, but Lippmann
only uses it for a moment. The confusion that the reader may have lasts less than a paragraph, as
Lippmann gives several examples of what people may view freedom as. In short, the amount of
ambiguity used is very low. Lippmann is careful to always say exactly what he means. He
writes logically and clearly, providing examples and definitions when needed.
In a persuasive article like Lippmann’s, it is very easy—and possibly tempting—to use
ambiguity. When trying to convince a reader of something, many writers prefer to use loaded
and ambiguous language. It is the mark of a trustworthy author when as little ambiguity as
possible is used. Lippmann shows his honesty in his article, relying merely on the merit of his
argument to persuade readers to his point of view. His lack of ambiguity makes his point of
view clear and strong. He leaves the readers in to doubt as to what his opinions on political
freedom are.
Assumptions
One of the biggest assumptions that Lippmann makes is that the reader is an advocate of
freedom. But as most people reading his article will likely be those who love and cherish
freedom, this is an acceptable assumption. There are other, smaller assumptions, such as the
reader will understand what true political freedom is, or what Lippmann defines it as. Or that the
reader is someone who is capable of discussion. Some people may not be able to convey their
meaning in an assertive way. Asking the Right Questions emphasizes the impact assumptions
3
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
can have on both the reader and the article: “Hidden or unstated beliefs may be at least as
significant in understanding the argument” (Browne & Keeley, 2012, p. 55). Lippmann is
extremely careful to keep any hidden meanings out of his article. For instance, he could have
assumed that his readers would be political gurus who understand a particular jargon, or that
everyone will be in favor of opposition, or discussion. Lippmann writes for the layman in such a
way that most everyone who reads his article will be able to understand it and come away with
their own opinion, whether they agree with him or not.
Assumptions can reduce understanding and even recognition of important points in an
article. In escaping the common mistake of making assumptions, Lippmann creates an article
that is principled and worthwhile. One can read it with a confidence that he is honest in his
opinion and trusts the reader to form their own. It is no small feat to write an article that can be
comprehended by nearly all who read it. Lippmann’s lack of assumptions is an impressive
testament to his writing abilities.
Fallacies
Lippmann is quite scrupulous when dealing with fallacies. In the second paragraph,
Lippmann (2012) appears to commit a small “either-or” fallacy. He states that if one man
disagrees enough with what another man is saying, he will try to “suppress” that man (p.1). He
assumes that there are only two possible outcomes; either the men will agree, or they will
disagree and one will try to overcome the other. In reality, there are several different situations
that might arise from such a dilemma. However, Lippmann is generalizing merely for the sake
of rhetoric, and it does not affect his argument. Browne and Keeley (2012) define an “either-or”
fallacy as “assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two” (p. 82). They attempt
to educate their reader as they expound on the several and varying types of fallacies a writer can
4
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
commit. In order to be able to determine what those fallacies are and where they occur, one must
develop the skill of critical reading. “…the objective of critical reading and listening is to judge
the acceptability or worth of conclusions” (p. 73). It is essential to be able to identify fallacies
wherever they may occur.
Lippmann could have committed several fallacies in his article, which he fastidiously
avoids. He could have attacked political individuals who may not seem to revere political
freedom; he could have appealed to popularity by using over-the-top examples with prominent
public issues to convince readers to agree with him. Lippmann avoids all such fallacies and
merely states his beliefs and the reasons and logic behind them. By so doing, he constructs an
article that is credible and frank.
Evidence
The evidence that Lippmann uses is mainly opinion-based. He is not writing to impart
factual information, but rather to expound his personal views regarding the subject of political
freedom. As a result of this, his article is mainly an emotional one, though the use of emotion is
appropriate because of his topic. With any topic that does not have one definitive answer that is
irrefutable, emotion and opinion must be involved as a large part of the discussion. Even though
Lippmann’s article doesn’t include several researched resources, his logic is such that the reader
needn’t harbor doubts pertaining to his credibility. His evidence takes the form of examples and
scenarios that are relatable to a general audience so that the reader can easily see the point he is
trying to make.
While he doesn’t necessarily quote different authors and scholars, Lippmann steers away
from personal experience as a form of evidence. Browne and Keeley (2012) advise readers to be
wary of personal experience. They state that “a single personal experience, or even an
5
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
accumulation of personal experiences, is not enough to give you a representative sample of
experiences, personal experiences often lead us to commit the hasty generalization fallacy” (p.
97). Offering personal experience as a form of evidence is not generally acceptable as concrete
fact. Lippmann recognizes this and offers logic in place of personal experience. His argument
stands on its own, without adding the ideas and thoughts of well-known scholars. He relies
solely on his own thoughts and feelings, giving his article a personal feel. The reader is given a
glimpse into Lippmann’s personal—and occasionally quite forceful—views.
Conclusion
Lippmann does a remarkable job in abstaining from making those mistakes that many
authors struggle with. Because of this, he can write with the confidence of persuading—or at
least informing—his readers about what he feels to be true political freedom: the freedom of
discussion. He writes with clarity that lends credibility and strength to his argument. He offers
his opinion and invites the readers to make up their minds about whether or not they agree. In
that way, he captures the very essence of his topic: progress occurs when discussion takes place
and personal opinions can be formed without any bias. (1,469)
6
CRITIQUE OF WALTER LIPPMANN’S “INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION”
References
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking
(10th ed.). Boston, United States: Pearson.
Lippmann, W. (2012). The indispensable opposition. In R. Seamons (Ed.), The way of wisdom
(2nd ed., pp. 328-332). Rexburg, ID: BYU-I. (Original work published 1939)
7