Politics Through the Looking Glass

‘I know what you’re thinking about,’ said Tweedledum; ‘but it isn’t so, no how.’

‘Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.’

Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

The Root Causes of Political Polarization.

During an era of extreme political polarization, I find myself wondering why everyone seems to be talking past one another rather than to each other. Is it because of the extensive menu of fake news and alternative facts we are being fed, or is it due to something more profound? 

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”[i]

I’d go further and say no one is entitled to his or her own rules of logic.

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher born in 384 BC, is generally credited for developing what we call “logic”. More accurately, by observing how people use language to make arguments about the correctness of a conclusion, Aristotle codified a system of thought which allows us to distinguish between good and bad forms of reasoning. The focus of logic is not whether a particular series of statements is true or false but whether the way in which an argument is made is intellectually sound.

But let’s start with facts since that’s where most politicians and pundits seem to spend their time. Simply put, a fact is something that actually exists or whose existence can be objectively determined. A fact is true regardless of one’s preferences, perspectives or personal interests. Since the Enlightenment, there’s been a strong preference for facts that can be empirically proven by observation. In reality, however, everyone accepts certain things as being true without the benefit of scientific proof (this will be the subject of another blog in the near future).

Putting Facts to Good Use.

 Clear thinking and sound reasoning allow us to put facts to good use. It’s a shame, therefore, that partisans across the political spectrum rarely use logic as the fundamental structure of their arguments. Of course, that never stops a diehard partisan from calling the other side’s arguments “illogical”.  It’s exceedingly difficult to debate an issue if you are rebutting illogical fallacies in the other side’s argument with your own illogical arguments. As Jesus so aptly put it:

 “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”[ii]

Some have said that political discourse was never meant to be logical to begin with. After all, political speech is rhetoric, not logic. But I disagree. Indeed, I cringe every time I hear someone say “we need to control the narrative”. Why is that? Because you find the truth inconvenient? Or is your argument so illogical it needs to be obscured by those facts which you believe support your view?

George Orwell hit the nail right on the head when he said:

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.”[iii]

Could this be why we are at a stalemate on such important issues as abortion, climate change, taxation, immigration and foreign policy, to name a few?

The Rules of Logic Are Not Politically Biased.

So, why then do I believe the rules of logic, if regularly applied, would help break the political log jam we are facing? The answer is simple: the rules of logic are universal, abstract, invariable principles that apply no matter what political ideology a person favors. Few people[iv]  can reasonably reject the cardinal principles of logic such as:

1. Consistency – no proposition in a logical argument should contradict another proposition that is critical to reach the conclusion.
2. Validity- a logical argument never allows a false inference to be made from a true premise.
3. Completeness- a logical argument allows for the analysis of analogous information, but only when it is relevant.
4. Soundness- any logical theory invites testing of its hypothesis, i.e., nothing is “settled science” until it really is.
5. Expression – a logical argument can be expressed without reliance on arcane information and vocabulary.

Compare the previous principles with those illogical fallacies we often see used in political debate:

1. Circular reasoning- also known as “begging the question”, occurs when the conclusion of the argument is used as a premise of the same argument (e.g., carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen more since the start of the industrial revolution than any other time in human history; therefore, any global warming during that time must be attributed to human activity. This ignores evidence that other factors in earth history have caused higher global temperatures and CO2 levels when humans were not present).
2. Ad hominin arguments – attacking the person’s character rather than the argument itself (e.g., anyone who questions the existence of “white privilege” must be a racist, even if that person happens to be black, as was the case when David Webb, an African-American conservative talk show host was called racist for questioning whether he had benefited from white privilege by CNN analyst Areva Martin, who is black (Sirius XM Patriot, January 15, 2019).
3. Straw man arguments -exaggerating someone’s argument in order to make it easier to attack (e.g., to reduce greenhouse gases, people should never eat meat – are you trying to put ranchers out of work?)
4. Post Hoc/False Cause – claiming that because something occurred before an objectional event, it must be the cause (e.g., I vaccinated my child and symptoms of autism only appeared afterward; therefore, the vaccine caused the autism).
5. False dichotomy – reducing an argument to only two possibilities (forcing us to choose the lesser of two evils) when other more desirable options are possible (e.g., we either implement Medicare for All or millions of Americans will die from lack of healthcare).
6. False equivalence- claiming that two examples of a problem are the same when they are not (probably the most common illogical fallacy – so many examples to pick from, e.g., those who support building a wall on the US southern border are just as bad as the Nazis who built concentration camps during WWII).
7. Non Sequitur- assuming “this” follows “that” when there is no proven logical connection (e.g., when I was a Senator, I helped the Wall Street area after 9/11; that’s why Wall Street has been donating to my campaign).
8. Bandwagon fallacy – claiming that because a premise is popular, it must be true.  This also includes the “slippery slope” argument – if one action taken, no matter how absurd, another action will inevitably follow (e.g., in a campaign ad, a candidate is endorsed by numerous popular celebrities in sports, entertainment, etc.; if they support me, everybody will).

Surely, I’ve missed other examples of both sound and faulty reasoning, but I hope I’ve illustrated why the absence of logic in political discourse partly explains why we’re in the mess we’re in.  If you’re still with me, just remember, as important as facts are to a debate, their validity can be easily compromised by the bias of those using them. Real facts should be the foundation of any rational argument, but without a logical process of reasoning they are vulnerable to manip

---

[i] Goodreads, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Quotes

[ii] Matthew 7:5 (New American Standard Bible)

[iii] Goodreads, George Orwell Quotes

[iv] Some women suggest that logic is the province of men with low self-esteem in contrast to the “emotional intelligence” of women. See, e.g., https://theoutline.com/post/7083/the-magical-thinking-of-guys-who-love-logic?zd=18zi=5p64prqz  (Aisling McCrea, February 15, 2019).  This is a classic example of an ad hominim attack discussed below.