A disturbing trend among “progressive” academics is lying about opponents in an attempt to discredit their arguments against the numerous coercive policies that progressives favor. If you argue that statist policies such as minimum wage laws are actually harmful to the poor, there’s a good chance that some leftist academic will try to find some reason to declare you a racist, thereby disproving your argument. It’s the cheap and easy way of defending statist beliefs.

In this Discourse essay, Erec Smith discusses this ugly problem. He begins:

As a former college professor who speaks and writes about hot-button issues, and as a Black man who criticizes progressive politics regularly, I often find myself the subject of false accusations—claims that not only distort my actions but reverse them entirely—from people some may call progressive activists. (Apparently, as a Black man, my critique of leftist politics is especially detrimental to social justice.) I want to be clear: I’m not talking about misunderstandings or heated misinterpretations. I’m talking about outright lies.

Smith gives the example of his recent congressional testimony, which was attacked by “progressives” not by responding to his actual statements, but by making stuff up to smear him.

Such tactics against non-progressives is getting pretty common. For example, Professor Nancy MacLean’s book Democracy in Chains is a slanderous and intellectually dishonest assault on James Buchanan, who argued in favor of limited government. Intolerable! Find statements to portray him as a racist, no matter how far-fetched the case. (Here is one review of this execrable book, by Duke’s Michael Munger.)

Thomas Sowell has long argued that before you can be a partisan of the poor, you must first be a partisan of the truth. As Smith points out, for many on the left, defending their belief system takes priority over the truth.