Theoretically, arguments are supposed to be settled by the facts. Each side is expected to make its best case so that others, who are less emotionally involved, can decide which is stronger. This way the truth will emerge and we can make decisions based on reality.
So much for theory. It has been thrown out the window in this season of political malice. Both political parties hate each other, but the Democrats decided that logic would play no part in their efforts to monopolize power. They are perfectly willing to resort to logical fallacies, if this will enable them to prevail.
I know that I am expected to say that both sides are equally guilty of logical malfeasance. The required mantra is that each engages in lies and manipulation. That is true, but misleading. The reality is that they do, but not in equal measure. The Democrats are far more prone to non-rationality.
Two years ago, progressives objected when it was claimed that the media were biased. But then a series of studies documented that more than ninety per cent of the stories about Donald Trump were negative. Even-handedness and objectivity in journalism were myths.
It is the same with logic. Those on the left discarded it as a hindrance in their march to power. Today they cheerfully employ fallacies to advance their causes. One of these tools is the ad hominem argument. This attacks the person on the other side, rather than the case he is making.
The ad hominem is effective because it puts its target on the defensive. Instead of explicating the facts, he is intimidated into defending his integrity. Outsiders are likewise focused on his reputed lack of ethics instead of the validity of his claims.
A case in point is William Barr. Hitherto our current Attorney General was widely regarded as a man of impeccable integrity. Most of his colleagues thought of him as a lawyer’s lawyer. He was a man who knew the law and stuck to it. As was said, he unflappably crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”.
But then came the Mueller report. Enemies of the president expected it to be the nail in Donald Trump’s coffin. For two years, they had been proclaiming they had the evidence to prove our president was guilty of collaborating with the Russians.
More recently, they gloated that the “the walls were closing in” on Trump. Any day, once the results of Mueller’s investigation were released, it would be possible to impeach this vile impostor who had no business sitting in the White House.
Then boom, the released report did not include evidence of a crime. Despite having been composed by lawyers who despised Trump, it did not furnish conclusive data that proved the original allegations. This could not be believed. It could not be true.
As was required by the law, Mueller duly reported his findings to the Attorney General. Barr was then to disseminate the materials as he saw fit. To this end, he decided first to write a summary of the Special Counsel’s conclusions. Then he would furnish a lightly redacted copy of the report to congress and the public.
Barr was a good as his word. Yet this was not good enough. Something had gone wrong. Since the left had virtually canonized Mueller, it could not be him. Instead, Democrats settled on the messenger. Out of nowhere, Barr became the bad guy. He was responsible for misstating the case.
This is when the ad hominems began to fly. Almost every liberal who came forward described Barr as a heinous villain. He was a liar and a fraud. This man was engaged in a cover-up. He was a virtual toady to the president.
Time and again Democrats argued that the Attorney General was supposed to represent the nation rather than the president. Without a scintilla of evidence that he pandered to Trump, they asserted he did. His word could not be trusted because he was biased in favor of a corrupt chief executive.
This avalanche of false denunciations has deceived too many people. Ad hominems, no matter how many or vile are a sign of weakness, not strength. When people resort to them it is almost always because the facts are not on their side.
Democrats have thus been caught with their pants down. They are now trying to revive their prospects by destroying the reputations of their rivals. The way they are behaving is testimony to their fears, not a commitment to our nation’s welfare.
Melvyn L, Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment