Bubbles and Mainstreams
We must remember that the New York Times is targeting those who live inside a very specific bubble. Evidence of which is an editorial today about extrapolating the Akin gaffe to represent the views of all Republicans. Here’s a little taste of the editorial, referring to three different stances consistent with a pro-life view (of which more below):
All three positions are outside the mainstream of American opinion, but they are pretty much in the dead center of Republican thinking.
Get that? There’s a “mainstream” in America but the Republicans are far away from it. What’s the cognitive difference between this and openly saying that the Republicans are not American? (Just because you don’t use profanity when you disrespect others doesn’t mean it’s a civil conversation.)
What bugs me about this, and the whole Todd Akin mess, is the ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument against the man, instead of an argument against a belief. It’s a standard logical fallacy. It’s illogical, invalid, and flat-out wrong thinking. It identifies a person with a reprehensible or unsavory reputation, asserts that he holds a particular belief, and therefore accuses you of being equally reprehensible if you share a belief that he holds.
Todd Akin now has a reprehensible reputation. He is a pro-life Republican. Therefore, all pro-life Republicans are reprehensible.
What’s also galling about this flat out wrong thinking is how loose it is. For instance, the quote above mentions “three positions.” They are: (1) Roe v. Wade should be overturned; (2) support for an amendment that defines life as beginning at conception; and (3) whatever it is that Akin said. Then the New York Times quotes a Gallup poll that says that whereas voters are split on whether they’re pro-life or pro-choice, and whereas Americans substantially agree that abortion is morally wrong, the majority of the public does think there are circumstances in which abortion should be legal. From this, the New York Times declares anti-abortion positions “outside the mainstream.”
In the past, “outside the mainstream” used to be a polite way of saying insane or unreasonable. Now, the New York Times has used it to refer to what is simply a minority position, where all distinctions are swept away. The anti-abortion position is generalized as nutty, simply because in the one aspect which favors the New York Times, it’s not very popular – even while other polls on the same page show that different aspects of opposition are widely supported by most Americans. This abuse of the term “mainstream” is why I’ve come to loathe it. Whenever I see a writer arguing about the mainstream, my spider-sense tingles and I suspect I’m dealing with a fool – a suspicion that usually proves correct.
The editors cheat reason. They use attitude instead of argument, and use arrogant condescension to spackle together the loosest and flimsiest accusations. This isn’t an argument or a case. It’s merely what lawyers call pounding the table.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
If a New York Times columnist is proclaiming how mainstream American he is, he should probably have some empty Chick-fil-A containers in his wastebasket. No?
Jul '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Is mainstream America represented by coworkers at the Times? The small mindedness of the NY progressives is profound.
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
I remember 20 years or so ago, I heard politicians and pundits start saying "The American people believe that ..." and filled it in with their own views (freedom/income equality/etc.). I always thought that was a danger in that construction (which was used on both sides) precisely because it could lead to these bubbles.
Jan '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Agreed.
Also, styles of rhetoric have a limited shelf-life. We all know trendy phrases that have grown stale, like "how's that working out for ya?" and other similar shorthands that seemed fresh for a while, but now just seem meaningless. The same is true for extended arguments or rhetoric. I recall that Lawrence Tribe was known to teach a debate style in which you simply rattled off as many points as you could think of, on the hope that any points your opponent didn't have time to address would be conceded to you by default. Bill Burton (the same ex-Obama advisor) was notorious for this, even to the point of talking over opponents just to get his points in. That isn't rhetoric; it's just rudeness.
Jun '12
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
KC, remember we're talking the Times here. It's not only a bubble, it's a shrinking bubble.
Feb '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
'Pounding the table'...that's good, should be in the title.
Sep '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Mathematics degree, summa cum laude from Harvard in 1962. I guess he put the degree to good use. Argumentum ad verbal diarreahum.
Sep '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
America's stump toothed inbreds now live in a Gotham city skyscraper.
Nov '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Akin, so far today, is staying in. The Corner has a piece about a possible swap going on, but that still keeps him alive in the GOP, which is in the process of proving yet again that we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at a moment's notice. If 5pm rolls around and this guy is still in, I'm going back on the ledge.
Feb '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
On the page the editorial links to is this chart. According to that chart, 22% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances & 27% believe it should be legal in all circumstances. It seems to follow that neither of these positions could rightly be called ‘fringe’ — at least, not in any objective sense. Further, the 50% who believe it should be legal under some circumstances differ very widely about what those circumstances should be. In other words, every position about abortion is a minority position in America.
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
It's typical Times overreach. The editors could simply have denounced Akin's comment, but instead it has to become: "those Republicans, they're so extreme they even oppose killing babies."
Dec '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
I agree. However, there could be more going on here. They attack ad hominem because they think our "out of the mainstream" ideas flow from flawed character. They are wrong, of course, but sometimes bad thinking is founded on bad character. I feel that way about Rousseau.
Nov '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
The editorial is nothing more than an attempt to prove to whomever they think read their crap that the Republican brand is something the reader doesn't want. It is a way to tie Ryan and Romney into what Akin said, and make them look bad. I have no doubt it will reinforce what many on the left believe. I don't know that it will convince any independents.
I do find it interesting that they believe we hard core pro-lifers oppose an exception in the case of rape because we think women will use that as a loop hole. I've never heard such an argument made nor even considered it until I read it in the times. Just goes to show I need to read the times so I know what my opinions are.
Nov '10
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Also, it's really quite enjoyable to read the comments on this editorial.
Jan '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Indeed. This gaffe...
... now represents for conservatives "a window on their thinking."
Any Democrat who spouts nonsense speaks for himself and is obviously just mistaken, but any Republican represents every Republican and says what we all secretly believe.
Edited on August 21, 2012 at 9:40pmNov '11
Re: Bubbles and Mainstreams
Why anyone still reads the NYT is beyond me. The media quote and link to it for it's outrageous, outrage appeal but there is plenty of that elsewhere. I wish everyone would totally ignore it, never refer to it and let it slip away. That would inflame the left more than offended reaction- which is exactly what they want.