Letters to the Editor
-
Implicit Assumption
I don't have the foggiest whether Gates or Wal-Mart mean what they say. The fallacy in the argument is what catches the eye. The sore thumb I see here is this dotty notion of C.S. Lewis, AA or whoever or whatever of "Fake it until you make it." C. S. Lewis ASSUMES that the boor in polite society WANTS to be part of polite society. In reality, he's more like than not thinking of hieing it back to Hazzard county where his two coondogs are waiting to be fed and where he can relax on his front porch far from all this pretentious rot (He would employ slightly different terms.) Likewise, the AA slogan ASSUMES the the party in question WANTS to cease drinking and become a part of their organisation. As it happens, the same slogan and mentality can be applied to not so politically correct, philanthropic aims and organisations as well, such as Nuremberg rallies and KKK meetings, assuming, again, that the party in question really wants to fit in and is not, secretly, disgusted by the whole thing. The point is that it's rather a faint hope than any sort of compelling logic to suggest that Wal-Mart is going to change its ways due to a "Fake it until you make it" mentality. Posturing only leads to true change in parties that are weak, insecure and malleable. Neither Gates nor Wal-Mart fit this category. The long tradition of noblesse oblige that another reviewer has brought up is a far more cogent argument for a Wal-Mart/Gates change in policy than the rather cozy notion advanced here.