As an instructor for Philosophy 156: Reasoning and Critical Thinking, election seasons are both exciting teaching opportunities and depressing referendums on the basic rationale of the American public.
I couldn't ask for better textbook examples of fallacies than those found in our political discourse. Fallacies are common mistakes in reasoning that are nonetheless psychologically persuasive. Political discourse is chock-full of fallacies: ad hominem, appeal to emotion, straw man, false dichotomy, appeal to popularity, etc. With the exception of advertising - and it's hard to tell political campaigns from advertising - you won't find more fallacies per square inch anywhere. For example, the Barack Obama campaign claims John McCain's plan would put senior citizens' Social Security in the stock market. This attacks a distortion of McCain's actual position, which is a straw man fallacy. Likewise, the McCain campaign constantly distorts Obama's tax plan, another straw man. McCain supporters use Obama's "elitism" and actions of his acquaintances as reasons to doubt Obama's policies (obvious ad hominem fallacies).
Human beings are naturally prone to fallacies. Not even we philosophers, in our adobe tower in the Humanities Building, are completely immune. However, human imperfection is no excuse for the egregious amount of fallacies we see today. Politicians use fallacies and other irrational techniques to the extent that they do for an obvious reason: They work. In fact, they seem to work far better than rational arguments. I'm sure someone will accuse me of being a cranky, egghead intellectual because I suggest that our politicians might give us good arguments instead of heartwarming stories, factually challenged personal attacks and catchy slogans. I'm not saying that we should be robots or Vulcans, completely devoid of emotion or passion. However, a scan of our political discourse shows an alarming scarcity of rationality.
Recently, many Americans were obsessed with whether Obama called Sarah Palin a pig when he used a metaphor, an allegation that barely even made sense. Is this related to important issues? Does this have anything to do with a candidate's ability to lead? After recent debates, media pundits and political analysts spent most of their time talking about whether McCain looked at Obama enough, how wonderfully folksy Palin was or how Joe Biden choked up when discussing a family tragedy. Will looking at people, being folksy or having human emotions give the next administration what it needs to deal effectively with real issues such as the economy, Iraq, health care or energy policy?
In this age of what Stephen Colbert calls "truthiness," many people use "rational" as a synonym for "agrees with me." But two people can disagree and both be rational. There are rational Republicans and rational Democrats. Being rational isn't about what you think but how you think - that is, do you give good reasons to back up your positions? We don't see much discussion or evaluation of reasons in our political discourse. This is what makes it irrational, not any particular policy or party.
It's all too easy to blame politicians, the media or corporations for this state of affairs. Surely they are part of the problem. But another part of the problem is voters themselves. Would all this irrational nonsense get off the ground if we, the voters, didn't consistently fall for it? My emphasis is not on blaming voters but rather to suggest that we voters are responsible for our political discourse. This responsibility implies that we can do something about it.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Contrary to defeatist, apathetic notions that regular people don't matter, we voters have more power than we realize. Your vote counts just as much as the vote of the most powerful politician, pundit or CEO. By taking ownership of this power, we voters can survey the empty rhetoric and silly obsessions that populate our political discourse and demand something better. It may be that in a democracy, you get the politics you deserve. If this is true, it is the cause of both our current misfortune and of hope that we can do better.
Ethan Mills is an instructor in the UNM Philosophy Department.
