Previous
Hillary's Favorite Fallacies
Added: (Fri Apr 25 2008)
Madison, WI (April 24, 2008) – As a retired professor of philosophy who has spent 35 years teaching college courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I find it astonishing that newspaper reporters and television commentators are being taken in by fallacious arguments on behalf of Hillary. None of the five most important arguments for supporting Hillary in her contest with Barack Obama, for example, could pass scrutiny in a freshman course on critical thinking. There is powerful evidence here that politicians are among the most prolific at dispensing fallacies. That they continue to be taken seriously suggests that the "dumbing down" of America is complete or at a very advanced stage.
He can't win the large states.
The first of these arguments contends that, since Hillary prevailed over Obama in several large states, such as Pennsylvania, he would be unlikely to win those states in the general election. This argument has been making the rounds in newspapers and on television. It appeared on the front page of USA TODAY (April 23, 2008) using the following words:
Her win only nicks Obama's lead in pledged delegates, but it does reinforce questions she's raised about whether the Illinois senator can appeal to white working-class voters and carry the big industrial states on which Democrats rely in general elections.(p. 1A)
Stated explicitly, the argument maintains that, since Obama lost to Hillary in the party primary, he would also lose to McCain in the general election. But Hillary and Obama are both strong and attractive candidates to Democratic Party members. That more of them may prefer Hillary in a primary does not signal their defection to McCain in the general.
Indeed, Obama has demonstrated that it is he, not Hillary, who has inspired new voters to engage in the primaries. He has shown that he draws heavy support from independents and even Republicans when they are eligible to vote. A preference for one Democrat over another in a primary does not indicate a preference for a Republican over a Democrat in the general election. Even though this argument is obviously fallacious, it has been taken seriously by television commentators like Pat Buchanan on msnbc and was even featured on the front page of The New York Times (April 24, 2008) in the form of a Hillary quote:
I won the states that we have to win-Ohio, now Pennsylvania", Mrs. Clinton said on CNN about her successes over Senator Barack Obama, in one of her six appearances on morning news shows. "It's very hard to imagine a Democrate getting to the White House without winning those states". (p. A1)
That she prevailed over her Democratic rival in the primary not only does not show that he would not prevail over his Republican rival in the general. That she won over Obama in the primary does not even show that she would prevail over McCain in the general.
In courses in critical thinking, arguments by analogy occur when two things are compared and the claim is made that, because one of them has certain properties, A, B, and C, then, since the first has the additional property, D, so must the second. When there are more differences than similarities or few but crucial differences or the argument is taken to be conclusive, however, the analogy is faulty. That Obama lost to Hillary in a Democratic primary pitting two strong and attractive candidates does not mean that Obama would also lose in a general election pitting him against the much older and (arguably) far less attractive GOP candidate, John McCain. There are more differences than similarities.
He lacks a "knockout punch".
The second of these arguments contends that Obama doesn't have what it takes to put his opponent away: He lacks a "knockout punch". This one made its way into the column by Maureen Dowd, "Wilting Over Waffles" (The New York Times, April 23, 2007), in its opening paragraphs, which read as follows:
He's never going to shake her off. Not all by himself. The very fact that he can't shake her off has become her best argument against him. "Why can't he close the deal?" Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday. (p. A25)
But the same question might well be asked about Hillary with even greater justification. She began this contest with an enormous lead in the polls, an impressive organization, and instant familiarity. She was the favored candidate, by any measure. So what's happened? "Why can't she close the deal?" It seems clear: She lacks a "knockout punch"!
The fact is that Hillary's campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning, as virtually all sides would agree. Adopting a "big state" strategy, she allowed her rival to accumulate a string of victories and an impressive number of pledged delegates. Hillary's campaign squandered vast sums on high-priced advisors, four-star hotels, first-class air fares, and catered meals. Obama's campaign has arrived earlier and in greater number in state after state. Her plan was to have the contest "wrapped up" by Super Tuesday. But it didn't happen. One might well ask, "Why?" The answer: She lacks a "knockout punch"!
She won a "double-digit" victory
There is an almost universal tendency to grant Hillary a "great victory" because she won Pennsylvania with "double digits". But, as Steve Brant (OpEdNews, April 23, 2008) has noted, the numbers do not bear it out. With 99 percent of all votes counted, the official results were as follows:
Hillary Clinton: 1,258,278 (54.7 percent)
Barack Obama: 1,042,573 (45.3 percent)
When you subtract 45.3 from 54.7, you get 9.4. As Brant also observes, 9.4 does not equal "double digits". Indeed, since we round up for decimal values equal to or greater than .5 and round down for decimal values less than .5, as long as .4 is a value less than .5, Hillary won a 9 percent victory. It was not "double digit". That is simply a distortion.
It is not difficult to appreciate why Hillary's staff went to work manning the phones to make calls to supporters for money. Since she was reported to be between $10 and $20 million in the red, when the percentages appeared to be 55%-45%-a bona fide 10% (and "double digit" difference-it was prudent to take advantage of the latest tabulations, even if they might not stand up. What many may find most remarkable, of course, is that her victory is not the kind of "double digit" margin that might have made a difference, which would have fallen in the 18-25 percent range, but it was not even "double digit". Yet how many commentators have explained to the public that Hillary didn't do well enough?
What is striking is that her failure to make a significant difference in Obama's lead has been taken out of context and promoted as though she had attained a great victory! In light of the history and context of this contest, however, such an argument becomes an excellent illustration of special pleading, in which you cite only evidence favorable to your side and ignore the rest. That Hillary's people are very good at this become apparent in reading the coverage of the outcome. The overwhelming attitude has been that Hillary won an important victory, when circumstances-including the minimal difference this is making in pledged delegates-suggest that it actually represents a significant defeat.
Obama can't carry key blocks.
Even The New York Times (April 24, 2008) has run another front-page story questioning Obama's ability to gain support from key blocks ("Obama Struggling to Add Support of Key Blocks"), which it has elaborated in the following words:
It is a question that has hung over Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and it loomed large on Tuesday night after his loss to Senator Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania: Why has he been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination? (p. A1)
The obvious answer, of course, is that he has been competing with a strong and attractive woman who has more than 20 years in public service and has accumulated a substantial and dedicated following. That means this argument overlaps with the faulty analogy that motivates the claim that he can't carry the large states. As kos of Daily Kos (April 23, 2008) has observed, when we focus specifically on the "key blocks" of voters, it turns out that Obama has been improving his success from contest to contest. For example, he increased his support from those 60 and older from 28% in Ohio to 38% in Pennsylvania; among whites generally from 34% in Ohio to 38% in Pennsylvania; among white men from 39% in Ohio to 44% in Pennsylvania; and among Protestants from 36% in Ohio to 53% in Pennsylvania. Hillary won by 10.5% in Ohio but only by 9.4% in Pennsylvania.
These gains, as kos remarks, were made against on onslaught of criticism from the Rev. Wright affair to the "bitterness" controversy and the flag-pin flap. Personally, having studied what Rev. Wright actually had to say, I think Obama would be better off, not by issuing a vague disagreement with some of the things he said, but by simply asking, when criticism is raised about him, "What did he say that you find objectionable?" After taking nine–actually ten, if you include "God damn America!"-of his comments, I have found ("What's Wrong with Rev. Wright", diatribune, March 23, 2008) that most of them are true and that none of them is obviously false. Even damning the United States for its harsh treatment of minor drug offenders who are black appears to have been completely appropriate, when it is considered in its rhetorical context. But the superficial state of political discourse in this country today all but precludes discussion of serious issues.
So what's going on here?
Hillary continues to promote the notion that, unless the primary votes in Florida and in Michigan "count", the Democratic Party will have disenfranchised a significant portion of its own members. This, of course, would require changing the rules after the game (with respect to Florida and Michigan) has already been played. Even though the Republican legislature in Florida moved the date of its primary over the objections of Democratic Party officials, her demands are not only self-serving but constitute an assault upon the integrity of the Democratic National Committee itself. If the party cannot enforce its own rules for securing the nomination, then it has no rationale for existing as a political party ("Hillary's Perfidy", diatribune, March 22, 2008). Hillary is laying down the gauntlet by demanding that either she is the nominee or else she will take the party down with her-even though Barack Obana's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan! In logic, this is called an "appeal to force".
Such extreme tactics call for an explanation. Robert Creamer (The Huffington Post, April 23, 2008), has put his finger on the problem. Pennsylvania was Hillary country-older, blue collar, Catholic, and rural-yet in spite of extremely favorable demographics, she was unable to pull together the kind of 18-25% victory that she needed to change the course of this campaign. Obama still enjoys a substantial lead with respect to pledged delegates, where even if she were to take 80% of those that remain after Indiana, that would still not be enough. Pennsylvania was also her best shot at overtaking Obama in relation to the popular vote. And her margin of victory was not enough to convince the party leaders and super-delegates that Obama could not win there and elsewhere. Which means she was unable to make her case against Obama under very favorable conditions.
Her recent claims to have taken the lead in the popular vote by including votes cast in Florida and Michigan displays transparent dishonesty. Her whole campaign reeks of the old politics of confrontation and attack, divide and conquer. Most American's today, I believe, have had enough of that. When neither evidence nor reason supports a position, in politics as elsewhere, resorting to fallacies becomes the court of last resort. Relying upon them insults the American people, of course, because it takes for granted that we are naïve enough and gullible enough to be taken in. But even these desperate measures will probably not be enough to bring her the nomination. As Creamer concludes, "Clinton may have won last night, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama's march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton's Waterloo."