An opinion is like an appendix: everyone has one, it serves no particular purpose, most of the time it’s completely ignored and you only notice it when it’s removed.  

This is exactly what occurred to me when I observed the manufactured controversy involving Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post editorial board. The Amazon wunderkind’s decision to prevent the Oracles of DC from handing down their wisdom from Delphi on the Potomac triggered waves of outrage from the sort of people who take their marching orders from elite strangers with golden laptops. These are the folks who treasure their appendixes and mourn the loss of something they just realized they needed to fully function in this democracy.

I have to say it was amusing to watch over ten percent of the Washington Post readers announce publicly that they were canceling their subscriptions. Social media was replete with the righteous indignation of (mostly) liberals who clutched at their pearls and acted as if Bezos had purchased the original copy of the Constitution from the National Archives and set it aflame while wearing a MAGA cap. This is what I posted on Facebook as I considered their despair with bemusement:

“A lot of people are canceling their subscriptions to the Washington Post because its owner directed the editorial staff not to make an endorsement. Let’s be honest about a few things: Editorial boards do not have the power they think they do. They are filled with people with opinions, and no particular expertise. They can opine. But their views are neither better nor worse than any reader’s. There is an arrogance to the suggestion that the world needs endorsements from the Fourth Estate. This is not a violation of the First Amendment. The press is not being infringed upon by the government. If anything, it is the free market system at work, where a private owner is entitled to use his property as he sees fit. The fact that the property is viewed as a public service does not change that principle. The people canceling their subscriptions are not Trump voters. The people canceling their subscriptions are not canceling them because they were hoping for a Trump endorsement. And finally, as I told someone else, I know people who canceled the paper when I was fired. At a personal level that made me happy but ultimately it made me realize that this was as bad as canceling the paper because it carried my column (that happened too.) On the other hand, you have every right to send whatever message you want with your dollars. No one is owed loyalty.”

As I referenced in that post, I was once let go from a paper where I’d worked for almost eighteen years. I was the one “notorious” conservative who supported police officers against claims of brutality, the Boy Scouts against claims of homophobia, unborn babies against claims of being expendable at momma’s whim, and Bill Cosby against claims of being a rapist. That last one triggered so much anger among the nice suburban readers that my editor was forced to write an editorial apologizing to them for running my column while regretfully reminding them about that annoying principle of free speech. The subtitle was “An editor asks: How I can live with myself giving a platform to someone who stands for everything I abhor?”

Ultimately, even that limited level of tolerance fell by the wayside and I was fired for being a prolific social media presence. When readers wrote to tell me they’d canceled their own subscriptions because I’d been let go, it made me both happy and a bit embarrassed. Happy, for obvious reasons. Embarrassed because no one’s opinion matters that much in the grand scheme of things. At least, it shouldn’t.

That’s why I’m completely bemused by the head-banging and wailing from those who think they’re entitled to a Washington Post endorsement or, to a lesser extent, a Los Angeles Times or USA Today endorsement. Who cares? Truly, who needs a disconnected voice with no expertise other than an ability to string words together slightly better than Joe Biden telling them who to vote for? Do these people not have eyes and ears? What magic incantations are they expecting from the editorial pages? Do they really need these opinions to become better informed? Or, as I suspect, do they simply want some liberal intellectuals — and I use that term ironically and oxymoronically — to confirm the validity of their own views?

Opinions are completely personal. They have no inherent value to anyone other than to the opinionator. They sometimes do have the power to trigger change like, for example, if you’re George Clooney and you commit elder abuse on behalf of Barack Obama. That sort of thing gets people to pay attention because you have an Oscar and a Very Important Human Rights Lawyer Wife.

But in general, mature Americans shouldn’t need someone else to tell them what to think and how to choose their leaders. And if they do, their votes are worth even less than the Washington Post’s editorials.

Christine Flowers is an attorney and lifelong Philadelphian. @flowerlady61

This piece was originally published in the Delco Daily Times.