Stop Saying “If” to Justify Your Shoddy Political Ideas

On May 30, 2017 President Trump tweeted, "The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy,". "Dems would do it, no doubt!"

In fact, there is 200 years of evidence to support the premise that “dems” would not do it, and neither would “repubs” because neither one ever has.

On March 24, while talking to Matt Schlapp on his program, Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher asked if it would be treasonous if there was collusion with Russia. Schlapp said it’s “probably treasonous,” but Maher answered that if it was Hillary Clinton they were talking about, there would be no “probably” there.

Maybe that’s true, but it’s a guess. Maybe it isn’t. More importantly, why guess? What point does Maher want to prove by positing maybes and what-ifs?

10/25/16 Rachel Maddow MSNBC “If this were Obama, the clip would be played on FOX News ad nauseum for days.”

On social media, we are inundated with memes guessing that the opposition in any scenario would act with more malice than us. If this was a liberal, a conservative, a Christian. A Muslim, a straight dude, a white dude, a woman, a man, a… We use these arguments to communicate our perception of unfairness, but none of these arguments are logically sound. Even when they might be accurate, they are still poor arguments.

When Donald Trump guesses that his enemies would do it, the guess falls under the category of logical fallacies called “Red Herring” fallacies. These are arguments or rhetoric that somehow characterize your opponent’s argument in a way that misdirects from the actual point of contention and which you can easily defeat.

Specifically, he uses an “Appeal to Spite” which goes something like, they can’t be right because I hate them so much. It assumes bad intentions somehow invalidate an argument! But even serial murderers can accurately relate a fact, such as telling you what two plus two equals. Arguments aren’t valid or invalid because of your feelings toward a person, and guessing about what the other side might do or say, especially when the guess is of malicious intent, does nothing to further your argument and only invites the other side to make their own guesses. Instead of saying “Dems would do it.” He should write the truth which is, “This is the only way to get it done.”

This kind of guess is also a Red Herring in and of itself. The other side would come up with much better arguments. When we say, “If this was Obama, you would be impeached by now.” We are supplying the other argument in a way that is easily defeated by our own guess. (also, straw man) In mystery fiction, a Red herring is a clue that leads nowhere, or a suspect that is not guilty. Here, guessing what the other side might say or do is also a clue that leads nowhere. Stop it.

Another logical fallacy is a “Straw Man” argument. This is when you mischaracterize or guess at the opposition’s argument in a way that is easily defeated. When we say, “Conservatives believe god will fix all of our problems.” This is easily refutable by pointing out that if god was going to do it, why pass any laws at all? A senator recently said that God would fix global warming so no reason to act. But if that is true then why act on abortion, or gay marriage, or to prevent war, or feed people? But the real argument is more nuanced that the liberal characterization of it. It’s a straw man.

Finally (but not finally! We could write about fallacious political arguments every day, all day!) When we shout, “But, you do it too!” which was at the Heart of Trump’s tweet. His message was, I don’t care if this is wrong, the other side if given the chance would be more wrong. This is an example of the Tu Quoque fallacy, otherwise known as the Appeal to Hypocrisy. This is perhaps the most childish and the most often used in modern political thought. As a disciplinarian in a public school I have more experience than most with versions of the Tu Quoque argument!

“Johnny take your gum out.”

“But Sally had gum this morning and you didn’t notice!”

I try to always point out that they are not arguing that they are in the right. They only argue that because someone else got away with it, they should get away with it too. They agree they are breaking the rules, they just want impunity! This is what trump is asking for on the many occasions that his only argument is that the other side is worse. Logically speaking he is admitting he is wrong.

These arguments are fallacious, but also shoddy. It's lazy, thoughtless thinking from lazy, thoughtless people. American political discourse deserves far better that the whines and cries of a grade school playground. If you have an argument, make it! But leave the speculating about your opponent’s motives or likely actions out. It’s weak, and we all deserve better.