A MODEL FOR OP ED ARTICLES. I recall seeing a statement by Christopher Hitchens that he had been taught to address the other side’s strongest argument and that this approach had gone out of fashion. It seems to me that Hitchens was right that that kind of approach is out of fashion. I am frustrated that I encounter so many articles that assume there is only one side to an argument. So I was pleased to see this article by Neil Irwin in the Washington Post (February 5), and would love see more articles like it. The article is entitled “The case for the too-big-to-fail banks”. I clicked on the article out of curiosity. I believe that too big to fail is too big, and I suspect that Irwin probably does too.
Irwin uses the following format to summarize a position paper in defense of the big banks: 1. What Irwin thinks is the strongest argument for the banks. 2. The counterargument against point 1. 3. A response by the banks to point 2. 4. A second line of argument for the big banks. 5. A third argument for the big banks that he finds “less persuasive”. 6. A set of questions raised by the arguments. The development of the arguments and the analysis is also good. A terrific article. (I have not changed my mind, but I am happy to see a debate framed this way).