George Rebane
The political season is in full swing again; actually I don’t think that it has taken a breather since 2008. The Great Recession and all the government programs designed to bring us back into a fine and fundamentally transformed fettle has highlighted an ideological rift in America of proportions to rival its Grand Canyon. And the result has been a debate that is now changing into a shouting match in the streets.
That would be all well and good if it laid the groundwork for greater understanding between the sides. Not a chance. And one of the main reasons is the fact that, starting with the politicians in Washington, we don’t argue our respective cases very well. The Left and Right, having long ago given up on each other, are both trying to convince the supposedly undecided Middle. They do this by putting on a show of attempting to persuade the other through various arguments relying on a supposedly shared sense of justice, equality, fairness, with even an occasional nod to reason and logic.
I don’t think the Middle is all that impressed with the rhetorical fireworks. Some of that may be due to limited interest or background in things political, historical, international, or even economical. Although the last part is beginning to get people’s attention, especially those looking for a job.
Admittedly, this is not the most favorable view of those ideologically innocent millions, so let’s assume that enough undecideds out there are interested in the country’s direction and fate, and that they have been keeping up with what’s going on. So let’s assume that what and how we argue matters.
If so, then the ‘where was X when Y first happened?’ sounds silly right off the starting blocks. You know the ones I mean; as when Congress or the Administration is about to do the next questionable (aka dumb) big thing. The often brilliant retort by the defenders of the proposal is an indignant, ‘Well, where was (Bush/Clinton/…) when all this first began?’ And that repartee, accompanied by a well-delivered smirk, is supposed to defend the issue? Most certainly not to anyone paying attention.
You see, it really doesn’t matter where anyone was when it first happened or was first opposed or first ignored or whatever. That was then, this is now. Logically, the puffed up defender responds instead by asserting to all within earshot that the current proposal is justified, as a what? – a belated tit-for-tat, a retribution? Against whom? For what? Almost never is there anyone to demand that he answers the criticism by citing the merits of the present case, and not by some dubious dredging of politicized history.
This kind of retort reaches nosebleed heights of absurdity when it is levied against an organization or relationship that wasn’t even in existence in that bygone day of the ‘where was when’ repartee. And more so when the, say, organization subsequently came into existence to address precisely the issue in question. How many times have we seen the ‘where was when’ argument derail any hope for a productive dialogue, and often end it with a false sense of victory or defeat, depending on what side you took.
Now we come to the fine art of begging the question. The definition of this type of logical fallacy has spread enough so that few understand the real meaning of the phrase which actually has been studied since Aristotle covered it in his Prior Analytics (in classical literature this fallacy is referred to by its Latin petitio principii). To beg the question is to use a proposition’s premise – often cleverly stated and/or hidden – to justify the proposition that is the objective of your discourse. And that can be done in a wondrous number of ways. In these pages it has been an unintended(?) staple of debate for years.
As an example, let’s look at a well-argued proposition that is now law – Obamacare. We have asked whether it was best and proper (constitutional) for the Democrats to shove nationalized healthcare down the country’s throat. The justification most often given is that Obamacare will provide healthcare for millions who previously had none. So Obamacare is said to satisfy this requirement – but hold on. Obamacare itself is justified only if it is the best way (efficient, cost effective, etc) of delivering healthcare to the nation. And that is exactly what Obamacare’s critics dispute. So the defense, by the administration and other Leftwingers arguing that Obamacare is proper public policy because it will provide healthcare for additional millions, simply begs the question. And the light thinkers of the land just lap it up as a sufficient apology for Obamacare, and are happy to move on to their next mental challenge.
Let’s conclude this little exposition with a logical fallacy that is habitually used by the Left’s intellectuals, a fallacy whose depth is only exceeded by its wide application. It may be summarized by ‘Love the principle, love its progeny (its expressions)’ – or more formally, the confusing of a semantic taxonomy . The proponents of this fallacy do not reliably recognize the conceptual difference between a higher level notion like ‘freedom’ and specific expressions of freedom. For example, expressions of freedom in a society may range from an individual being able to travel anywhere at his whim, to also driving there at an excessive speed and killing someone in the process.
The naïf in this logical fallacy will accuse the previously declared freedom lover of being guilty or contributing to the death of someone killed by a speeding driver – ‘You wanted people to be free to go anywhere, and now seeing someone killed, you’re arguing for restricting driving speeds. As a lover of freedom, how can you be such a hypocrite?’ By this time, dear reader, you are shaking your head and saying that no one can be logically so debilitated. Yet a short perusal of the comment streams in this and other blogs, and, of course, Left liberal media outlets like MSNBC will quickly disabuse you of this comforting belief about your fellow man.
As a recent example from these very pages, a leading local Leftwing intellectual strongly argues that’s it’s a Rightwing hypocrisy to be for states’ rights while at the same time condemning AB32 as an expression of such rights. No kidding, that is really how they think. And this is just one of many such arguments in these pages that impose ‘Love the principle, love its progeny.’ as their only appeal to ‘reason’.
The careful reader will notice that this logical deficit requires not only the ability to mangle a semantic taxonomy, but also to concurrently apply a liberal (sic) dollop of the AND (‘All or Nothing Definition’) fallacy discussed in a previous exposition (here).
Cobbling all this together is a complex and confusing tour de force indeed. Make no mistake about it, the stuff we tackle here is hard enough as is without wandering off into logical la-la lands.
[correction] As noted from Mr Steve Frisch’s 410pm comment and my 541pm reply below, the above paragraph should read –
As a recent example from Russ Steele’s NC2012, a leading local Leftwing intellectual strongly argues that’s it’s a Rightwing hypocrisy to be for states’ rights while at the same time condemning California’s fuel economy standard as one expression of such rights. No kidding, that is really how they think. And this is just one of many such arguments in these pages that impose ‘Love the principle, love its progeny.’ as their only appeal to ‘reason’.
However, Mr Frisch’s claims as to the “fallacy” of this “entire post” stand as further evidence of the points highlighted in the above arguments.
[14nov2011 update] We are fortunate to have Mr Steve Frisch step forward, identify himself, and accept the above bestowed ‘Left intellectual’ mantle. His subsequent comments throw more light on the above presentation. Specifically, I draw your attention to the following –
In your twisted delivery of the points above each and every one of you is still missing the key point; your position is inherently inconsistent with your pro states rights position. If you believe in states rights and do not believe the commerce clause should extend to imposing national standards (which is your key argument against national health care) California has a perfect right to set its own fuel economy standard. Posted by: Steve Frisch | 14 November 2011 at 03:33 AM
Here Mr Frisch not only reinforces the ‘Love the principle, love its progeny’ mindset attributed to liberals, but he also introduces us to the fact that this logical fallacy can be used hierarchically – that it can be applied at all levels of the argument. From the above comment we see Mr Frisch imposing ‘Love the commerce clause, love all its of it implementations.’ And if you don’t love all of its most pernicious implementations, you obviously don’t love the commerce clause, never mind the original intent of its inclusion in the Constitution. Priceless.
(Please also see Mr Barry Pruett’s comments that follow from Mr Frisch’s.)
So now we have Mr Frisch having first imposed ‘Love states rights, love California’s fuel efficiency standards’, and then sliding effortlessly to ‘Love the commerce clause, love all of its implementations’. If you don’t, then to a progressive you are being inconsistent and illogical if you still embrace states’ rights and the commerce clause of the Constitution.
Finally, the important point not to miss is his assessment of the “twisted delivery” herein. To progressives like Mr Frisch, this presentation of the workings of a liberal mind really is a twisted piece of logic. We must not diminish what has been said – the man is not embellishing or using hyperbole, this stuff is totally inaccessible to him and his brethren in both its exposition and in its application. The magnitude of the gulf dividing us is fearsome.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment