Over the years ago, I have written about David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, two academic historians, who testify a lot for the lawsuit industry, mostly in asbestos cases, but also in cases involving exposures to lead, silica, and vinyl chloride. Rosner and fellow-traveller Markowitz, or Rosnowitz for short, are fond of telling two stories: (1) how some suspect organization tried to recruit them to testify for hire for defendants in litigation, and (2) how I had the audacity to criticize their suspect historical scholarship about silica, silicosis, and silica litigation.[1]
I was shocked (really) to find that Rosner and Markowitz were at the center of recruiting historians for hire to write attacks on opponents of their socialist ideology, but both historians sit, or have sat, on the Project Advisory Board of the Cry Wolf Project. Back in 2010, this “project” was engaged in hiring historians to write white papers (or should they be “rainbow papers”) to stop or discredit “progressive policy” options.[2] Imagine that: historians for hire by the Left.
Lest you think that the Cry Wolf Project is some innocent group of social justice warriors, you should know that the project has a Nixonian or Stalinist (take your pick) enemies list of “culprits,” including:
Academics
American Medical Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
Business Roundtable
Chamber of Commerce
Conservative media
Democrats
Energy Industry
Financial Institutions
Food Industry
Mainstream media
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
National Grain and Feed Association
Republicans
Think tanks
No surprise, but the Crying Wolf Project is the darling of socialist academicians. Jake Blumgart, a researcher for the Cry Wolf Project, attempted to explain:
“Progressives need to construct a counter-narrative that demonstrates that in many cases these claims [of conservatives] have been, and continue to be, grossly exaggerated. The Cry Wolf Project’s wants media, opinion leaders, and policy makers to respond ‘There they go again!’ when industry ‘cries wolf.’ Such a refrain will undermine the credibility and arguments of organizations.”[3]
Ah, attacking the messenger; manufacturing doubt; and projecting bad motives and psychological weaknesses upon opponents. Almost full-bore Trumpism. In our current tribalist politics, the extent to which both sides impute their own motives to other tribes is fascinating.
And who is this “Talking Union,” for which Jake Blumgart writes? According to its website, Talking Union is:
“a project of the labor network of Democratic Socialists of America. We will report on the activities and views of DSA and Young Democratic Socialists of America labor activists. We seek to be a place for a broad range of labor activists to discuss ideas for the renewal and strengthening of the labor movement.”
And in this daisy-chain of institutional affiliations, who are the “Democratic Socialists of America”? With thanks to Al Gore for having the invented the internet, we can find an answer quickly. The Democratic Socialists of America is an organization, indeed, it is:
“the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 92,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.
We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.
The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States because we’re a member-driven mass organization. We believe that working people should run both the economy and civil society, and we show our commitment to this principle by being an organization of, by, and for the working class.”
I have quoted at length from the Democratic Socialists’ website to make clear that this is not an organization that simply a group of “progressives”; they are activists who are engaged in what they conceive of as class warfare. In their own words, they would limit democracy to those people who fit their definition of working people, and that the interests of the “working class” are paramount. At times, there may be only a thin line between trying to tame the excesses of capitalism, such as employer’s failures to protect workers, and outright communism. The Democratic Socialists are quite open about what side of the line they occupy. The apparent commitment to democracy appears to be a sham; not everyone is entitled to run the economy and society, only “working people” are.
There is no democracy in the worldview of the “Democratic Socialists”; the line between its stated goals and those of Marxism is imaginary.[4] Just as Trump has a man crush on Putin, socialist George Bernard Shaw had one on Stalin,[5] Kulaks be damned.
From the Crying Wolf Project, with its counter-narratives, we have traced the ideology to the Talking Union, to the Democratic Socialists of America, to Marxism.
Well, I have had friends who were Marxists, and I would not advocate that Marxists should be kept from teaching in universities, or that Marxists should not enjoy the same freedom of speech and association that we all enjoy. Marxists, however, have an ideological commitment to historical materialism, by which everything can be, and must be, explained by class conflict. Given these commitments, can Marxist historians testify in litigation that involves what they perceive to be class interests and an opportunity to “empower” working class claimants? It would seem that positional commitments to the interests of the “work class” create conscious and unconscious biases when exploring historical issues that touch on labor-management issues.
Lawyers are accustomed to, and know how to exploit, bias that results from money, institutional loyalties, and friendships.[6] And yet, there are real conflicts of interest generated by scientists’ affiliations with advocacy groups, labor unions, or the lawsuit industry, not to mention their deeply held political commitments.[7] The ideological commitments revealed by the writings of the website sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America should raise questions about expert witnesses who have deep ties to the group.
Historians would seem particularly vulnerable to biased assessment of whether knowledge of hazards was shared by industry and labor, as well as their respective industrial hygiene advisors, governmental actors, academia, and the medical community. Nonetheless, the case books are notably absent of precedents about discovery into political commitments, whereas the cases about discovery of fees, income, and percentages of defense versus plaintiffs’ work are legion.
[1] “Succès de scandale – With Thanks to Rosner & Markowitz” (Mar. 26, 2017). See D. Rosner & G. Markowitz, “The Trials and Tribulations of Two Historians: Adjudicating Responsibility for Pollution and Personal Harm, 53 Medical History 271, 280-81 (2009); D. Rosner & G. Markowitz, “L’histoire au prétoire. Deux historiens dans les procès des maladies professionnelles et environnementales,” 56 Revue D’Histoire Moderne & Contemporaine 227, 238-39 (2009); David Rosner, “Trials and Tribulations: What Happens When Historians Enter the Courtroom,” 72 Law & Contemporary Problems 137, 152 (2009); David Rosner & Gerald Markowitz, “The Historians of Industry” Academe (Nov. 2010).
[2] “Counter Narratives for Hire” (Dec. 13, 2010). Other members of the Project Advisory Board include Robert Kuttner (co-founder & co-editor, American Prospect), Alice O’Connor (Univ. California, Santa Barbara), Janice Fine (Rutgers Univ.), Andrea M. Hricko (Southern California Envt’l Health Sciences Center), Jennifer Klein (Yale Univ.), Meg Jacobs, (Mass. Instit. Tech.), William Forbath (Univ. Texas Law School), Tom Sugrue (Univ. Pennsylvania), and Lizabeth Cohen (Harvard Univ.).
[3] Jake Blumgart, “Introducing The Cry Wolf Project,” Talking Union (June 17, 2011).
[4] Staff, “Academia’s latest propaganda factory, the ‘Cry Wolf’ project,” San Francisco Examiner (June 11, 2010).
[5] Fintan O’Toole, “Why George Bernard Shaw Had a Crush on Stalin,” N.Y. Times (Sept. 11, 1017).
[6] Sahana Pal, “Establishing Bias in an Expert Witness: The What, Why and How,” 14 Internat’l Commentary on Evid. 43 (2016); Anthony F. Della Pelle & Richard P. De Angelis, Jr., “Proving Positional Bias: How much discovery should be permitted of an expert witness’s financial interests?” A.B.A. Litigation Comm. (April 20, 2011); Michael H. Graham, “Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by a Showing of Financial Interest,” 53 Indiana L. J. 35 (1977).
[7] “Can Expert Bias and Prejudice Disqualify a Witness From Testifying?” (Oct. 11, 2014).
