l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Can You Guess How Many Straw Man Arguments Were in Obama’s Speech?
Jan. 21, 2013 5:20pm Mytheos Holt
President Obama has an, at times, well-deserved reputation for delivering
his speeches well. Certainly, the president made an impression today when he
delivered his second inaugural address calling for a bolder, more expansive
government that would be committed increasingly to the principles of
liberalism, with characteristic soaring rhetoric.
Unfortunately, another characteristic was also in evidence in Obama’s
speech: namely, his tendency to argue against positions that nobody holds (
and by extension, to mischaracterize his opponents’ views so as to make
them easier to argue against). In logic, this unfortunate tendency is
referred to as a “straw man fallacy” and it was well-worn in President
Obama’s speech today – so well-worn that at times, he seemed to cough up a
new straw man fallacy with every sentence. How many of these arguments in
bad faith did the President use? Read on as we list each one and explain
their fallacious nature.
Straw Man #1:
“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by
acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or
communism with muskets and militias.”
The President’s line about muskets and militias is a rhetorical flourish
more than an argument, but the first part of this line is an obvious straw
man. No one in the current political climate is arguing for a complete
dissolution of government power such that only the American people as a
collective would be responsible for defending the country or performing any
other task. Rather, the question is how much responsibility should be left
to private citizens. Saying “private citizens cannot handle all
responsibilities” is not the same as saying “private citizens cannot
handle any responsibility at all.”
Straw Man #2:
“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need
to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and
research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”
Like the first straw man, this one argues against something which is
obviously false, and which no one believes. A single, individual person
obviously cannot do all of this alone, but again, that does not imply that
if someone cannot do something alone, the government must step in and do it
for them. For instance, an architect cannot build a skyscraper alone. He
needs laborers, engineers, and other people. But saying he can’t do this
alone is not the same thing as saying that private citizens cannot
cooperatively agree to do this without help from the government.
Straw Man #3:
“We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the
generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will
build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight
years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had
nowhere to turn.”
No one is proposing completely giving up caring for older generations, nor
is anyone proposing completely ignoring young people’s needs. The question
is how much government can afford to spend on each. More to the point, no
one on either side is proposing complete abolition of programs that help the
elderly or the disabled.
Straw Man #4:
“We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky,
or happiness for the few.”
This particular straw man presumably is meant to apply to income inequality.
At least, that’s the only public policy issue that this author can see it
relating to. However, as with the others, it is a misreading of people who
argue against greater income equality. For one thing, freedom and happiness
are not necessarily the same as money, and luck is not the only thing that
makes a person wealthy. Moreover, people who argue that income inequality is
not necessarily a problem are not defending the idea that only a few can be
wealthy, which is a question of income mobility, not equality.
Straw Man #5:
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can
avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more
powerful storms.”
This straw man, which deals with global warming, is actually two fallacies
in one. It is a straw man because no one believes they can avoid the impact
of natural disasters completely, and it also begs the question by assuming
that solving global warming will solve the problem of fires, drought and
storms, while simultaneously trying to prove that by solving global warming,
natural disasters will be lessened.
Straw Man #6:
“We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do
not require perpetual war.”
The President’s critics on national security do not believe in perpetual
war. They may believe in seeing some wars through to their conclusion, or
starting other wars out of necessity, but none of them believes in perpetual
war for its own sake.
Straw Man #7:
“For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters
can earn a living equal to their efforts.”
People arguing against bills such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which
claim to be devoted to ensuring equal pay for women, often do so because
they are concerned that these laws give trial lawyers too much of an excuse
to sue, not because they believe women should be underpaid.
Straw Man #8:
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated
like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then
surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Again, there are no mainstream political figures who believe that gays
should be unequal before the law. In fact, gays enjoy all the same
constitutional protections as straight people. The question of whether the
right to marriage is one of those constitutional protections, however, is an
unresolved question, though the Supreme Court may resolve it later this
year. This straw man also assumes that the only function of marriage is to
facilitate love. That is certainly one view, but it is not one that all
critics of gay marriage subscribe to, and thus assuming that they oppose gay
marriage out of opposition to love is a straw man.
Straw Man #9:
“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the
striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.”
Shutting off immigration completely is not a policy proposal being offered.
What is being argued about is the question of what to do with people who
immigrated to the US in contradiction to its laws.
Straw Man #10:
“Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every
contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same
way or follow the same precise path to happiness.”
This is obviously true, but is also a straw man because no one believes that
following a blueprint for governance requires the people following that
blueprint to make all the same lifestyle choices. This is not even an
argument that constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court advance. The
President is arguing against a position that is not held by his critics.
That’s ten straw men in slightly under 20 minutes. In other words, one
logical fallacy every 2 minutes, on average. | l******t
发帖数: 12659 | |
|
