That’s a sentiment that I very much agree with. (Surprised?)

Of course, the standard reply is: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

I think figures like Limbaugh and Will talk to an intended audience who already share their beliefs and sources, so in their work as it stands footnotes would be redundant. But where there is evidence to support their positions available, and where opponents or the unconvinced are interested, then it is of course sensible for them to share it on request. If they’re right, they may gain more followers or score a point, if they’re wrong, they can clarify or improve their own arguments and make them more unassailable, while acquiring a reputation (deserved or not) for fairness and honesty in debate. Refusing to share your data openly will immediately invalidate your claims in the eyes of anyone who respects Enlightenment or scientific values.

The rules of politics are not the same as those of science or enlightened debate, though. It’s part of the reason politicians and political operators have the reputation for truth and honesty that they do.

It’s a perversion of motivated reasoning. It’s agenda-based motivated reasoning as opposed to subconscious motivation. For them, the overarching goal is more important than the individual arguments that require fact-based conversations.

Have you ever taken a debate class where you were forced to argue a point with which you viscerally disagree? A good debater can do it well, regardless of the “facts.”
Jamie Vernon

With Kristol, Buckley, and most other supposed “thinkers” of that generation of conservatism, I really get the feeling that “you had to be there”–that there was something in the force of personality of the person that simply had to make them sound more convincing. Because to a person who didn’t become politically aware until after these supposed luminaries had either gotten very old or were actually dead, they just look like blustering con artists. It might also help that the more time passed, the more their wishes became true–i.e. relentless tax cuts and military adventurism–and are now free for judgment outside the beautiful world of perfect academic theory. That’s one of many unfortunate features Kristol shared with Marxists.