I'm delighted to fail your litmus test

And why you should actually be encouraged that I did.

The only category that anyone should completely fit into is their own.

Before I begin today's column, I want to briefly discuss the testimony that executives from Meta, TikTok, X, and other companies gave yesterday before the Senate regarding child exploitation on their platforms. Specifically, the moment where Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, stood up and apologized for failing to protect children on his platform after being blasted by Committee chair Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. I actually puked inside my mouth when I saw this.

All of this was, of course, for show. None of these people care as much about children as they do about themselves. Zuckerberg cares about getting richer than he already is and will say whatever he needs to say to make that happen. Politicians will grandstand under any circumstance that they think will aid their reelection campaigns.

If these three, all of whom wield considerable power, actually gave a damn about anyone besides themselves, this country would be quite a different place. I was sufficiently enraged that I wanted to go full-on Archie Bunker on my widescreen LED TV. End of rant.

If you are a writer, musician, artist, or creator of any stature, you will have your share of both fans and critics. The fans are great because they pay the bills. But the critics are important too because they keep you honest. It’s difficult to straddle the line between giving people what they want and staying true to yourself, but if you want to stand for anything, it’s a balancing act that you must learn how to sustain.

I have been writing weekly columns for decades. In all of that time, I’ve learned a thing or two about what it takes to get on page one of the op-ed section. It’s all about identifying and cultivating an audience. In that regard, it’s like making money: if you have few scruples, the path forward is easy and paved with riches. In terms of opinion writing, all one has to do is tell audiences what they want to hear.

But if you want to actually stand for anything, especially integrity, it’s going to take a bit more work.

In my career as a writer and a scientist, I have either had or been the subject of headlines in publications from the New York Times to New Scientist. I’ve been celebrated, cheered, jeered, and vilified. I still have columns in the legacy media, but Substack has given me a much wider and larger weekly audience. And in the two years I've been here, this publication has grown by leaps and bounds. The success of Howlin’ at the Moon in ii-V-I has exceeded my wildest expectations.

But with that success comes the temptation to chase more of it—something that I am steadfastly trying to do without just telling readers what they want to hear. I’m not that guy.

I have always valued fidelity to what I believed to be true, whether I liked what it meant or not. I’ve paid a price in friendships, relationships, and prosperity for sticking to my guns. Knowing the truth cost me a career that I loved and could have ridden profitably into retirement. But I can live with all of that. The reward is that I can look at myself in the mirror and not see a purveyor of word porn.

I have learned how to predict which columns will be widely circulated and which will not. The ones that I know will be widely shared are the ones that have a lot of red meat for one side of the political spectrum or the other. This column, by the way, will not. It will be an equal opportunity offender.

I’m OK with that. Do you think that the likes of Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow actually believe much of the nonsense they spew? Of course not. They say what they say because they’ve cultivated large turnouts based on tribalism, and it’s made them rich and famous. The legacy media world is littered with people who stoke division among huge audiences for fame and fortune. It’s intellectually lazy and dishonest, but it’s hugely profitable.

The antidotes to this are independent journalists like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Bari Weiss, who are good at calling balls and strikes fairly and doing the difficult work of uncovering the truth. The world is a complicated place, and few things are more elusive than the truth. I’m ecstatically happy for their successes.

Many new or casual readers here assume that I am fairly conservative—whatever that means anymore. That’s not exactly true. I have always been, on average, a centrist. Not, mind you, that all of my convictions lie in the middle of the social/political spectrum. I have some fairly liberal convictions and more than a few very conservative convictions. They just happen to average out somewhere a bit to the right of what is currently considered the center of the spectrum. This has changed a bit with the times.

I worked in higher education as a faculty member for decades, which is an overwhelmingly left-leaning occupation, but I was never a good fit for university culture. Though I agreed, for instance, with the separation of church and state, I was never contemptuous of all religions. To the chagrin and horror of my colleagues, I endorsed the Second Amendment, and when it became legal to carry on campus, I did. I supported the First Amendment too, but that was back in the days when it was fashionable with the left. Regardless of what narratives it supported (or did not), I fought for sound science. You’d be amazed at the trouble that caused. I always rejected identity over merit.

I’m fiscally conservative and mostly a social liberal. I’m for small government and limited regulation, but not for no government and no regulation. And though I disapprove of most vices, I’m reluctant to make that decision, via regulation, for others. But just because things aren’t illegal doesn’t mean that you should imbibe of them. I just think that it’s better to educate than legislate, where practical. That, of course, involves a large grey area, but I’m always glad to have that discussion.

Do I believe in climate change? Yes, I do. The evidence for it is overwhelming. And human activity is unquestionably to blame for the current epoch. But do I believe that we’re all doomed if we don’t jump on the green bandwagon? No, I do not. Most of the green agenda is scientifically unsound and economically disastrous. It’s an example of the cure being worse than the disease.

Do I think that Donald Trump is an intemperate buffoon? Yes, I do. Do I think that he’s much different than many other politicians? No, I do not. He’s just more upfront about it. Did he win the election fair and square in 2016? Yes, he did. Did he lose fair and square in 2020? Yes, he did. At least that’s according to the preponderance of evidence.

Did Trump attempt to foment an insurrection after losing? No, a riot isn’t even close to an insurrection. Does he deserve to be saddled with numerous highly questionable legal proceedings? No. In my eyes, the only thing worse than Trump are many of his strident critics, who’d be right at home with their comrades in a communist state. A lot like many of Trump’s most fervent devotees would be at home in a fascist state.

Was COVID a problem that required some sacrifice? Yes, it was. Should the government have the power to mandate shutdowns, masking, social distancing, and vaccinations? Absolutely not. The government should never have that much power. Those freedoms should be relinquished voluntarily or not at all.

Should the government be free to disseminate their view of the facts surrounding any situation? Of course. It’s their job. Should they be able to censor, deplatform, smear, or in any other way suppress criticism and questioning? Absolutely not. In this country, we have the First Amendment, which is supposed to guarantee that the government stays away from suppressing other narratives. If you don’t get that, you should not be in government. If you don’t get that and you are not in government, you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free.

I think that everyone has a fundamental right to live their life freely as long as they do no tangible harm to others. If you want to do something like change your gender, you go knock yourself out. I’ll think no more or less of you. Well, as long as you don’t start talking about “birthing persons” and using other nonsensical terms.

It’s when you claim that you actually are a biological man or woman, when you are not, that I draw the line. You should not be assuming the role of your transformed “gender identity” in sports or in any activity that otherwise disadvantages someone else’s biological identity. Claiming that drugs and surgery for minors, who are far more likely suffering from social contagion than gender dysphoria, are the first choices in addressing their issues will get us crossways. Just a few years ago, that would have been considered child abuse. It still ought to be.

As a writer (and as a single man reentering the dating world), I’ve discovered that a prominent new feature of living in the 21st century is the litmus test—that one thing that either completely qualifies or completely disqualifies one as a person of merit. Every time I publish a piece here critical of Donald Trump, a few readers unsubscribe. Every time I rip the left for bad science, a few readers unsubscribe. Every time I profess no faith in any higher power, readers unsubscribe, and women block me!

The litmus test, IMO, is foolish, and I’m really happy to fail them since it just saves trouble down the road. I’m delighted, in fact, that I failed your litmus test. And rather than banish me, you should be glad that I did too.

If a person like me, who despises, say, Donald Trump, is willing to vociferously defend Trump against bogus lawsuits and other false accusations, you should feel pretty good about the fact that you are on solid ground when it comes to Trump being unfairly treated.

If a person like me who doesn’t believe in any higher power (At least in the religious sense, who knows what wonders the Universe has in store?) agrees with you that most culture is a moral cesspool, I’d think that you’d value that coming from someone who just thinks that morality is right, as opposed to fearing divine retribution. We both want the same things, just for different reasons.

If a person like me calls out the junk science behind much of the brave new world, like transgenderism, but is still willing to acknowledge that you have every right to do what you want as an informed adult, I’d think that you’d be more interested in the fact that I support your right to do what you want than my exact reasons for doing so.

But there I go again, assuming that there is reason at the other end of any of this. That, as we all know, is just plumb silly.

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding bicycles and motorcycles, and arranging and playing music. Follow him on Twitter @MartinHackworth, on Facebook at facebook.com/martin.hackworth, and on Substack at martinhackworthsubstack.com.