More Rhetoric
- “I think we should have a czar to stop crime.”
- ‘Nah, that’s a bad idea.”
- “So, you’re in favor of crime????”
We’ve seen this style of rhetoric used often in politics lately. It starts by offering a solution to a problem, but then any criticism of the solution is misconstrued as supporting the problem. Obama isn't a master at this style ... but he uses it all the time.
It’s a variant of the “when did you stop beating your wife” fallacy. In both cases, you’re presented with a compound statement, but you’re only allowed to deny one of the parts. That allows your opponent to misconstrue your position on the other part.
Consider Paul Krugman’s piece today, in which he defends regulation. Krugman thinks he’s patiently explaining to us (rubes) why we need regulation, and what would happen if we got rid of it. Of course, this is a straw-man, since hardly anyone wants to remove regulation entirely. But Krugman takes it one step further. Krugman implies that unless we embrace the full set of regulations, and embrace the idea that regulators have unlimited authority, then we must be in favor of Big Bank or Big Finance excesses … and only the ignorant henchmen of Big Money, or their unwitting slaves, would accept that.
The same meme came out in Barney Frank’s excremental interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. (Frank’s performance was as obnoxious as it was predictable; he repeatedly interrupted his Republican counterpart, but when she did the same toward him, Frank went ballistic.) Remember, Frank is one of the geniuses behind Dodd-Frank, an unwieldy bureaucratic mess. Frank's argument is that under George Bush, the economy was unregulated (yes, he said that) and that’s why we lost jobs.
This is rhetorical nonsense. But it’s interesting that this style of argument is showing up more and more. It’s become the first stages of liberals rewriting history, where they try to reinforce their explanation of what went wrong by assigning a complex situation to a short, snappy, self-serving solution.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: More Rhetoric
Politician's Logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y
Sir Arnold: It's the old logical fallacy: all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore ...
Sir Humphrey: Therefore my dog is a cat.
Sir Arnold: He's suffering from politician's logic.
Sir Humphrey: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.
(Could someone explain how to embed a video?)
Edited on May 14, 2012 at 10:50pmNov '11
Re: More Rhetoric
We should all take note that it is not merely a liberal phenomenon. Conservatives use it too. Anyone who wants state action uses this technique to support their statist solution to some perceived problem.
I've even seen it used here on this website.
Jul '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Nice post. Your calling out of Krugman is especially appropriate as he repeatedly makes these strawmen arguments to justify increased spending (is there any problem it can't solve?). Dem politicians and interest groups indulge in a related version of this tactic whenever the possibility of budget cuts is raised: "They want to deny innocent children their immunizations!" they holler, hoping you won't notice the nice leather chairs and seemingly endless other examples of largess that constitute much of government spending.
Edited on May 14, 2012 at 8:39pmRe: More Rhetoric
I came into contact with this genre of rhetoric over the weekend.
Friend: "Don't you believe that education is a right?"
Me: "No. Education is a good thing, and I believe that we need an educated populace, but it's not a right."
Friend: "Why are conservatives like you so opposed to education?"
Re: More Rhetoric
KC, what we are watching is the implosion of American liberalism. The Barney Franks and the Krugmans are increasingly desperate and pathetic. Obama is thrashing around. Attempting to make this election a referendum on the sexual revolution is sheer madness.
My prediction is that things will get more and more entertaining.
Jun '10
Re: More Rhetoric
"The one thing that we simply cannot tolerate is intolerance. Once we round up and imprison all the intolerant, then everyone will be free."
Jan '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Joe Biden will be a leader of the effort.
Jan '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I came into contact with this genre of rhetoric over the weekend.
Friend: "Don't you believe that education is aright?"
Me: "No. Education is a good thing, and I believe that we need an educated populace, but it's not a right."
Friend: "Why are conservatives like you so opposed to education?" · 13 minutes ago
If your liberal friend is like (some of) mine, you can bet that he's telling other people how surprised he is that you've become so narrow-minded and ignorant.
What happened to Diane? Did she move to Kansas?
Mar '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Political discourse in 2012 often feels like this classic sketch.
Mar '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I came into contact with this genre of rhetoric over the weekend.
Friend: "Don't you believe that education is aright?"
Me: "No. Education is a good thing, and I believe that we need an educated populace, but it's not a right."
Friend: "Why are conservatives like you so opposed to education?" · 43 minutes ago
The key, I think, is to recognize the setup and flip it on them.
The moment you commit to your position you lose.
Jan '11
Re: More Rhetoric
It's neat, isn't it?
Enron and WorldCom beget the regulation called Sarbanes-Oxley to solve the problem.
Then Lehman Brothers and AIG beget the regulation called Dodd-Frank to fix the problem.
Then Global MF and JP Morgan lose billions and the solution naturally is - greater regulation to fix the problem.
Whaaah?
I keep telling you that Frank, Obama, Axelrod, Plouffe, Clinton, et al. simply aren't very smart. Glib and obnoxious, yes; smart, no.
Pop Quiz!
Q: What do you do to intellectual pushovers?
A: Push 'em over.
May '10
Re: More Rhetoric
It works on our side too:
Me: "I don't think Drugs should be Legal"
Libertarian: "Oh, so then you are for every aspect of the War on Drugs!"
I will say this, it does make me not want to have the conversation.
This seems to be the way to shut down discussion of any issue that is difficult.
Nov '10
Re: More Rhetoric
Great story:
My door bell rings one evening, and on the step is what appears to me to be some granola-type. Yes, I am profiling, I don't care. Back to the story. He says "Hello sir, would you please sign this petition to help save medicare?" I said, "Why would I do that? I don't want to save medicare." He started backing off the porch and said "You must be a Republican!" I said "What makes you think that?" He said "You just want seniors to die in the street!" I said "You must be a Democrat! You automatically think that because I don't agree with your solution to the problem that I don't think there is a problem!"
Mar '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Great story but this is a terrible conservative affliction. This approach does little to move the football.
Better to play dumb and pepper him with questions. "Save medicare from what? What seems to be the problem?" A few rounds of this and he'll be boxed into a conservative corner.
Feb '12
Re: More Rhetoric
The problem stems from intellectual arrogance and uncharitable interpretation in all instances. The only real fix to this issue is denying the premise, and then to set down real, mutually understood, positions, not a field of gasoline soaked straw men.
The reason this style of real, substantive debate isn't popular is because it's hard to do and requires intellectual honesty and courage. These are not popular traits in political discourse.
Apr '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Talk radio does this quite a lot, but usually in a funny manner. Limbaugh has his 'using the absurd to illustrate absurbity.' Beck last Thursday, oh my gosh, the way they picked apart the attack on Ted Cruz ad - I was just rolling. I have no idea if Mr. Cruz is actually the better man, but it made me howl with laughter. "Ted Cruz, with his eeeevil underhanded tactics - have you ever noticed how many of the same letters 'lawyer' and 'liar' share?"
Nov '10
Re: More Rhetoric
Casey
Great story but this is a terrible conservative affliction. This approach does little to move the football.
Better to play dumb and pepper him with questions. "Save medicare from what? What seems to be the problem?" A few rounds of this and he'll be boxed into a conservative corner. · 14 minutes ago
Casey, my goal was to get him off the porch. For that purpose, my response worked great.
May '11
Re: More Rhetoric
I think it may just be part of their mindset; they simply don't see there are more than two sides to one question. The following exchange between me and a teacher is explanatory. I had just argued that the contraception mandate would hurt Obama in states like Pennsylvania with significant Catholic populations. His response is instructive:
The implication, of course, is that the only reason for opposing the mandate is knuckle-dragging religious fundamentalist hatred of contraception. Absolutely no consideration whatsoever that it is quite possible for someone to have no problem with contraception but oppose religious charities and businesses to pay for it against their conscience. It's one-dimensional thinking, really.
Mar '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Paul A. Rahe: KC, what we are watching is the implosion of American liberalism. The Barney Franks and the Krugmans are increasingly desperate and pathetic. Obama is thrashing around. Attempting to make this election a referendum on the sexual revolution is sheer madness.
My prediction is that things will get more and more entertaining. · 2 hours ago
Substitute entertaining as a euphemism for terrifying and I am certain you are correct.
Mar '11
Re: More Rhetoric
Dodd-Frank is a 2319 page gift to all the financial institutions who had sense enough to have lobbyists at the time it was enacted. The only real provision it contained, closing down too big to fail institutions, is the one currently being revoked.
All of this is supposedly a substitute for the 37 page Glass-Steagell act revoked by a bunch of Democrats in the Clinton Administration and even more RINO's who decided government bailouts of failing financial firms was a Federal priority. Let us have no illusions here, the leadership of the GOP has embraced looting the tax payer almost as fervently as Democrats.
This is why there is a Tea Party. We are not blind. We know.