Listen to “Don’t Lose the Scent on TANF” on Spreaker.
He was born in 1763 in Farnham, Surrey, England; he was the son of a farmer and tavern keeper. He would later recall fondly a childhood spent working long days outdoors, learning practical skills and roaming the countryside — his playground.
That upbringing, that setting, would eventually provide the contrast central to much of his writing: the integrity and simplicity of rural British life versus his disdain for London — a habitat of political corruption, by his estimation.
His name was William Cobbett.
You know him, though you may struggle to remember from what or where.
Cobbett would become one of Britain’s most prolific and influential political writers of his day.
In 1807, Cobbett criticized the British press for distracting the public from more important matters. Newspapers had enthusiastically reported that Napoleon had suffered a major defeat. Cobbett argued the reports were exaggerated or outright false and accused the press of leading the public away from the real story.
What is remembered today is not so much what Cobbett was writing about, but how he made his point.
He told a story from his youth about dragging a smoked fish across a trail, causing hunting dogs to lose the scent of a hare. He compared the newspapers’ coverage to that fish — something dragged across the trail to pull attention away from what actually mattered.
That anecdote — whether it actually happened or was simply a literary device Cobbett dreamed up to suit the occasion — is familiar to you.
The red herring.
You’ve no doubt encountered one, perhaps even employed one yourself, while debating this or that with this person or that person.
Today, politically, a red herring is defined as an argument or piece of information introduced to distract attention from a different — perhaps more important — issue.
Which brings us to West Virginia.
Do this week’s developments in the state’s now-inescapable conversation over TANF and the School Clothing Allowance Program fit that definition?
If Cobbett were here today, would he reach for his famous literary device to characterize the emerging argument over TANF benefits being used to buy “beer and cigarettes?”
Impossible to know.
But West Virginians, in their wisdom, can — and should — ask whether a red herring has been dragged across the trail.
Because the real question isn’t whether beer and cigarettes make for a provocative political argument. They do.
It’s whether they have anything to do with the issue we were originally trying to resolve — a supposed TANF fiscal crisis and ensuring children’s needs are met?
Whether TANF benefits should be available as cash — and whether stronger safeguards are warranted — is a legitimate policy debate. But it does not reconcile the numbers, explain the program’s delayed opening or justify its early closure. Those were the questions before the public when beer and cigarettes were dragged across the trail.