How
To Raise the Level of Debate in Our Politics
By
Bonnie
Lee Calcagno
A
broadcast news anchor recently referred to the level of political debate in the
New Jersey gubernatorial race as in the gutter. Even in elections for the highest political office in the
land instead of giving reasons for what they propose to voters, candidates
often try to arouse anger and fear, negative emotions in the electorate. They try to manipulate the voter with
tricks rather than inform the voter by really debating the issues.
They
do this in a number of ways.
They’ll distort their opponent’s point of view, then go on to attack
their own distortion. They’ll
present irrelevant topics to divert the voters’ attention from discussion of
the real issue. They’ll talk in
glittering generalities making arguments they can’t justify. They’ll use loaded language and any
number of other manipulations because they work. Tricks get politicians elected.
Although
disheartened by gutter politics voters see it as inevitable, the way politics
is. But is it inevitable? Is there something we can do to raise
the level of political debate in this country? I say yes and I have a plan. They key in my opinion is getting Americans to start to
think critically. Educate the
American voter about the fallacies in reasoning that keep our political
discussions in the gutter and suddenly tricks and manipulations won’t work
anymore and politicians will have to debate real issues if they expect to get
elected.
What
keeps our political discussion in the gutter is the use of fallacies in
reasoning or tricks in the place of arguments to back up conclusions. I propose we post a list of these
fallacies on the web sites of our news stations such as CNN, WNBC, the Fox
Channel, ABC, NBC, and CBS. Then
we should encourage news anchors on television to read at least one email from their viewers a day pointing
out the fallacies in reasoning they hear politicians commit. We should encourage newspapers to print
emails and letters from their readers identifying fallacies our politicians
commit, too. We can even post a
list of fallacies at Board of Education meetings and all other public
meetings. We could post these fallacies
in school classrooms and encourage students to identify instances in which they
are used.
Soon
all over America people would recognize the fallacies in reasoning that are the
foundation of gutter politics. And
Americans will rise up to point out these fallacies, these tricks and
manipulations, on television, in our print media, in our classrooms, in our
public meetings, and the beginning of the end of gutter politics will be at
hand. Once the American public
recognizes that fallacies invalidate arguments, tricks and manipulations will
no longer result in the politician who manipulates the best as getting
elected. The day tricks and
manipulation no longer work is the day they will end.
Some
of these fallacies are:
The ad hominem argument where an opponent’s character is attacked
rather than debating the issues he puts forth.
The Slippery Slope where a dire prediction is made of an uncontrollable
chain of events that will be unleashed that will lead to an undesirable result
if an opponent’s proposal is implemented, when in reality procedures are in
place which would prevent this chain of events from ever occurring.
Appeal to Popularity in which candidates try to arouse popular emotions
to justify their arguments.
Straw Person in which a candidate misrepresents his opponent’s
point of view then attacks the misrepresentation because it’s easier to do that
than to debate his real position.
Red Herring which manipulates the voters’ attention by shifting
the discussion to an irrelevant topic rather than the real issue.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc where it is claimed one event caused another because
it followed it in time.
Hasty Generalization where conclusions are propounded based on too little
evidence.
Non seguitor or drawing an inference that is not justified by the
evidence.
Poisoning the Well where loaded language is used to discredit an argument
before it is discussed.
Appeal to Ignorence where a lack of proof for an argument is used as
proof for the opposing position.
Diversion where a candidate supports his position by arguing
for a different position.
Fallacies of Context where a politician doesn’t give you all the relevant
information.
Appeal to Questionable Authority where authorities are cited to buttress an argument
even though they lack the expertise to do so.
Explaining by Naming where a politician labels a phenomena confusing the
fact the label is just a label, not an explanation of the cause of the event
under discussion.
Either-Or where only two alternatives are put forth even
though there are a variety of alternatives that possibly exist.
And the list of fallacies goes
on. If you listen to one of these
in-the-gutter political discussions, you’ll find the manipulations politicians
use fit into one of these categories of fallacies. When a fallacy is identified voters have a basis for
discrediting the conclusion the politician arrived at by fallacious means.
Fallacies
keep us as voters from identifying the best solution to the issues under
discussion in our political contests.
They don’t give us good reasons for the conclusions our candidates are
promoting. They don’t give the evidence
we need to decide if the solution the candidate is proposing is the best one to
solve the problem. When the
information we are given is only partially true or irrelevant to our problems,
finding a solution to our problems becomes unlikely or impossible.
An
American public educated in the recognition of fallacies will be inoculated
against the virus of gutter politics.
The public’s focus will shift to how our politicians are supporting
their arguments. Are their
arguments relevant? We’ll start
looking closer at authorities being cited to buttress positions. We’ll ask - are our politicians providing us with an analysis to explain
what they think is the cause or causes of our problems? We won’t be fooled that labels identify
causes. We’ll scrutinize every
iota of information politicians are giving us in campaigns and ask ourselves if
they are giving us enough evidence to support their conclusions.
Once
we know what circular reasoning is we won’t be fooled by it. We won’t accept as evidence what is
really just a restatement of the problem.
We won’t let politicians use false analogies to prove their points. You’re comparing two things that are
different in significant ways and so comparing them doesn’t give us any
insights we’ll say. We’ll look into
the kind of statistic being used to support an argument and evaluate the
validity of the statistic being used by listening to experts with other
perspectives. We won’t allow a
single cause to be put forth as the reason for a complex problem because we’ll
understand problems are often the result of many contributory causes. You see when we start educating the
American public about fallacies, they’ll begin to think critically about what their politicians say and
once that process begins no one can predict how far it will go.
In
any political contest we are confronted with two or more candidates who hold
different views as to what the solution of our problems are. We the voters need to think critically
about solutions being proposed.
Identifying fallacies in reasoning is one way to do that. So let’s go America! Post those fallacies on your newsroom
web sites. Let’s start reading
emails and letters identifying fallacies on television and in our
newspapers. Let’s start
identifying fallacies in reasoning in our classrooms and at our public
meetings. Let’s manipulation-proof
the American public and watch the beginning of the end of gutter politics in
this country as we have known it.
|