Rhetological Fallacies and the Politicians that Love Them

So, the other day, I re-discovered the website Information is Beautiful and was delighted to come across the visualization of rhetological fallacies (“errors of manipulation and logical thinking”) because our political discourse is rife with such fallacies.

 Delving into CPAC for rhetological fallacies would be like searching for balls in a ballpit, so, instead, let’s go to Nancy Pelosi’s press conference this morning.

Nancy Pelosi expressed her willingness to aid Obama in his efforts at a “Grand Betrayal” of his voters and the American public.

"In terms of C.P.I., I have said let's take a look at that," she said at a weekly press briefing in Washington. "What is it -- there are elements in our party, who have said that we can do this without hurting the poor and the very elderly. So let's see what that is. There are others who are objecting to it plain and simple. I have to say if we can demonstrate that it doesn't hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let's take a look at it because compared to what? Compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society? These are their words. These are their words."

Those last few lines are perfect demonstrations of two rhetological fallacies: the false dilemma and the red herring.

A false dilemma is the presentation of two opposing options as the only two while hiding an alternative. Pelosi is saying that the only two options are (1) adopting chained CPI and reducing the outlays from the Social Security Trust Fund and (2) dismantling the program in entirety. She does not mention the possibility of increasing Social Security benefits or raising the cap for the payroll tax which funds the program. She is limiting the debate to two alternatives in order to make her own seem more palatable.

A red herring is the introduction of irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion. The line “Republicans saying Medicare should whither on the whine” functions as such a red herring. I’m supposed to support cutting Social Security benefits because Republicans hate Medicare? There’s no logical path from point A to point B; she has simply introduced point B as a distraction, as a way of not having to argue for chained CPI on its own merits or defend it against its (I would say) obvious weaknesses.

There's another logical fallacy at work in the broader argument of the Dem leadership although I'm not quite sure how to name it. The argument has three parts steps:

(1) Chained CPI is a technical fix, not a benefit cut.
(2) Chained CPI is harmless.
(3) We will make sure that chained CPI does not hurt the poor or the very elderly.

Setting aside the question of the vagueness of the definitions of "poor" and "very elderly," let's break down #3 a bit further. To say that we will make sure chained CPI does not hurt the poor and the very elderly is to say that, applied uniformly, it will hurt them. Let's rephrase the above statements:

(1) Chained CPI does not cut benefits.
(2) Chained CPI causes no harm.
(3) Chained CPI causes harm to the poor and the very elderly.

These three statements cannot all be true, so the Dem leadership suffers from its own internal contradictions.

Intergenerational Morality and the Foundations of our Duty to the Future

I’ve been meaning to post about the issue of intergenerational morality, a topic especially relevant amidst the debate about the Keystone XL pipeline as intergenerational morality looms large in environmental discourse.

My thoughts on intergenerational morality stem from a conversation I had last year about the ethical roots of the belief in a duty to future generations, or of the worth of future generations. The person with whom I was discussing this noted that she found the issue of international morality—the equal worth of a person born in London and one born in Nairobi—easy to justify; however, the question of intergenerational morality did not come as immediate.

We have two questions at play here; they are quite similar and can be discussed jointly although they remain distinct. (1) On what grounds do we affirm a moral obligation to future generations? (2) How does the worth of future generations compare to the worth of those living today?

If we accept international morality as a given (for this discussion), then you have a moral obligation to all of the other individuals currently in existence (and are of equal worth to all of them). However, this moral interplay between you and all of the individuals in existence is not fixed; the world of individuals at this moment is not the same as that several minutes from now, several days from now, months, years. New individuals enter this web of moral obligation, and presumably you have a moral obligation to them as well. Eventually, you will die and physically leave this web of moral obligation. However, do you believe that your death dismantles all of the moral obligations that you had? Do you not care about what happens to other human beings after your own death? Think of the duties you feel at a personal level to parents, children, siblings, friends. No one (at least, I hope, no one) views those as temporally-limited phenomena alone. Our affirmation that we have a moral obligation toward someone tomorrow, as opposed to just today, forges a temporal continuity to moral obligation; we do not frame that moral obligation within the bounds of our own mortality.

In other words, you have a moral obligation to all of the individuals that inhabit the world at each moment of your life. Then, one day, you die. But all of those individuals (or, more likely, almost all) in your web of moral obligation continue to exist. However, you have already established a moral obligation to them as persons across time who have different personal timelines from your own.

Additionally, the moment after you die, new people will have entered the world. And we’ve already taken as a given the principle of international morality; those new individuals are worth no less than those currently in existence and cannot easily be taken out of the web of moral obligation. I would argue, then, that there is a certain transitivity that takes effect in morality. If A has a moral obligation to B, and B has a moral obligation to C, then A has a moral obligation to C because all are of equal worth. Because we have asserted the principle of universal morality (taken as a given), this statement should prove logically sound. However, by inducing this transitivity to the web of moral obligation, we extend it boundlessly into the future because of all of the people whose lives temporally transcend our own and who will thus have thousands upon thousands of new individuals enter their web of moral obligation, all of whom are of equal worth.

The Internal Contradictions of the Expert

When reading an article in the New Yorker last week about the unending nature of the “war on terror,” I thought, “If the war on terror ever ended, what would all of the counter-terrorism experts do?” The “counterterrorism expert” falls within a group of occupations whose definition assumes the continued existence of a designated problem, occupations which suffer from an internal contradiction in which their success negates their continued relevance. In other words, the idea of the “counterterrorism expert” assumes that the terror will continue to be a large problem worthy of heavy federal investment.

Let me explain this better through the example of the diet pill manufacturer or the weight loss consultant. These occupations presume that obesity will continue to be a problem. If everyone were fit, then the diet pill manufacturers and weight loss consultants would see no demand and would cease to exist. Because of this, built into the position itself is the presumption of failure. The diet pill manufacturer and weight loss consultant do not actually want everyone to be fit—or believe that to be a genuine possibility. The continued relevance of their position is served less by universal fitness than by universal insecurity. When people feel insecure about their body image, the diet pill manufacturer and the weight loss consultant will thrive.

Let’s use this same angle to look at the “counter-terrorism expert” in the war on terror. The counter-terrorism expert has a vested interest in the continued sense of national insecurity because only in such a case does his/her position matter. As it stands, the war on terror is endless by design insofar as it rests on the assumption that the “war” must continue so long as somebody, somewhere, is plotting against the United States. A “counter-terrorism expert” must engage in perpetual threat amplification about terrorism in order to gain a seat at the table, for the demand for his/her position is a function of the perceived urgency and continuity of the problem.

Why Health Insurance Belongs in the Public Sector

I finally got around to reading Steven Brill's compelling, depressing, and long article in the recent edition of TIME on the U.S. health care system and how providers take advantage of consumers in this grossly unbalanced marketplace.  (Let me tell you a joke:  perfect information.  Hahahaha.)  The article reminded me of an argument that I have made in the past---which often takes the form of a rant--about why health insurance does not belong in the private sector.

Now, if we are determining whether an industry belongs in the public or the private sector, we can debate on two planes:  that of facts and that of morals.  When I railed against the empty mantra of "common sense" in a recent post, I affirmed that all policy-making arises from an interplay of facts (data) and morals (priorities).  In the discussion of public vs. private industries and goods, the central point of the first debate is the question of efficiency, and the central point of the latter debate is the question of choice.

My discussion will continue under the assumption that universal health care is a universal and worthwhile goal.  Unfortunately in U.S. politics, that often seems not to be the case.  However, for a democracy to function well, its citizens must be healthy of both mind and body.  The former requires attention to public education, the latter to public health.  A democracy that does not guarantee universal education and universal health care is a democracy in name only.

Efficiency

Defenders of the market often claim that privately-run organizations are more efficient than their publicly-run counterparts, and if we are going to determine whether an industry should be state-run or privately-run, then we should ask under which control the industry is most efficient.

Total health expenditure per capita in the U.S. ($8,233) is over twice the average of the countries in the OECD ($3,268).  Despite such spending, the life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is still lower than the OECD average, the number of physicians per person is low, and the rates of asthma hospitalization and obesity are high.  We are spending a lot of money on health care but are not getting our money's worth.

Looking within the United States itself, Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance for reasons such as its greater bargaining power and its reduced costs in administration and marketing.  The executive administrator of Medicare also won't be making $7.3 million.

Choice 

Goods that resolutely belong in the private sector are those for which choice matters--that are a function of individual taste or desire or which facilitate individual self-expression.  Fashion, restaurants, and cinema all come to mind as immediate examples of industries that cater to individual tastes, and clothing in particular facilitates individual self-expression.  In such categories, the difference in people's preferences are qualitative above all:  they are not mere functions of price. (Within any given price range, there will be a lateral diversity in quality and character.)

Now, choosing between health insurer A and health insurer B is not a matter of individual taste or self-expression.  Health insurance is much more of a need than a desire, especially if we assume (as we do here) that all should be insured.  One's need, however, is not dependent on one's ability-to-pay.  You do not need less coverage  because you make a lower income.  Choice, in this case, means "you get only what you can afford" whether or not it meets your needs.  No one wants to have lesser coverage for reasons other than price constraints; the lateral diversity at each price level such as that which exists in restaurants and fashion does not apply.  In such a situation, choice lacks the moral quality that it has in the situations noted above; it does not facilitate individuality, but rather reflects and exacerbates poverty.

In cases like this in which everyone's needs are the same although their ultimate "choice" depends solely on their ability-to-pay, the state should provide the service in order to guarantee the highest level of service to all of its citizens and to provide the security needed to enable the free play of initiative and enterprise in other sectors.

Excerpts from Mark Burnett's The Bible (Satire)

Survivor and Celebrity Apprentice producer Mark Burnett and wife and Touched by an Angel star Roma Downey recently produced a miniseries for the History Channel on The Bible.  Going from Celebrity Apprentice to The Bible is strange although incredibly American.

Thinking of how his Survivor background might influence his artistic vision, I imagined the following scene:

SURVIVOR: EDEN

(Music plays as the scene comes into focus.)

God:  Adam, Eve, you both failed the recent immunity challenge, so you are both vulnerable at tonight's Tribal Council.  Before you both cast your votes, I want you to think about your experiences so far in the Garden and on how you betrayed each other....and me.

(Adam leaves to cast his vote and returns promptly.  Eve then does the same.)

God: Who will be voted off the Garden?  Our first vote (unfurls the parchment) is for ADAM.  (Adam's stare hardens while listening).

So we have one vote for Adam.  Our second vote (unfurls the parchment) is for EVE.  (Eve sheds a slight tear in her left eye.)

Well, since you are the only two people in existence, there is no one to break the tie. As I created both of you, I hold the right to break a tie.  Let me reflect for a moment.  (Pause) You have both been voted off the Garden.

(Masaccio's The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden before resotration via Wikipedia, s)

Intellectually Lazy Deficit Polls Part One Billion

CBS News released results from a recent poll this morning about people's thoughts about sequestration, and unsurprisingly, it reflects the consistent intellectual laziness of deficit-related polls.

CBS News asked respondents about how they thought the government should reduce the deficit/replace budget sequestration.  What do we learn?  Why, the public wants to "raise taxes" and "cut federal spending."  Cuts to which programs, you ask?  CBS News does not care.  Tax increases on whom or on what, you ask?  CBS News does not care either.  

The public, according to CBS News, does not just want a mix of "tax increases" and "spending cuts," but it also wants "compromise" from both parties.  CBS News asked the following question:

In the current discussions over tax increases and spending cuts, which do you think [President Obama and the Democrats in Congress // the Republicans in Congress] should do--compromise some of their positions in order to come to an agreement, or stick to their position even if it means not coming to an agreement?

Does CBS News inform its survey respondents of what these positions are?  Does it acknowledge that the position of the President differs from that of the Congressional Democratic leadership, which differs from that of the House Progressive Caucus?  Of course not, that would risk moving the conversation away from centrist platitudes.

Just last week, Business Insider found that even Republicans supported the Progressive Caucus's plans, especially when compared to those of the Senate Democrats and the Republicans.  So, in other words, people want both parties to "compromise" on a position to the left of the Democratic leadership, demonstrating why American politics are a mess yet again.

Journey into the Land of No Meaning

I have ranted in the past about the incoherence of the "tighten the belt" metaphor and the mind-numbing inanity of the "-gate" suffix; however, I'd like to introduce a few more words and phrases that should kindly disappear from political rhetoric ("common sense," "balance) or be put under close supervision ("middle-class") because they have been used and abused into meaninglessness.

"Common sense":  The term "common sense" is a rhetorical device used to evade discussion.  The invocation of "common sense" implies that any rational individuals engaging in debate would ultimately come to your conclusion--if they did not already see it as prima facie.  There is no need, then, to provide any justification for the proposed solution, for it is simply the only one--the only "serious" one, at least.  Substantive debate requires invocations of facts (empirical data) or morals (priorities), and from those facts overlaid with morals---or morals buttressed by facts, we get policy proposals. 

Obama seems to love engaging in the fallacy of the argument from common sense.  We can see this in how he talks about gun safety legislation, immigration reform, and deficit reduction.

Even when I agree with a proposal described as a "common sense" solution, I cringe at hearing the vacuous modifier, the cheap trick for evading debate or staking out moral or empirical claims.

And it's always good to remember that what is sensible is not always common and what is common is not always sensible.

"Middle class":  All of our politicians love to deliver paeans to "The Middle-Class" and to talk about all of the wonderful things they plan to do to help "The Middle-Class."  But, one should ask, what does this term even mean?  Is it defined by income?  By education?  Clearly, the American class system is different from the British one in that we don't have a titled aristocracy.

The Department of Commerce, for one, has given up on defining the middle-class through income. In a 2010 report, it defined "middle class families" by "their aspirations more than their income."

"Middle class families and those aspiring to be part of the middle class want economic stability, a home and a secure retirement. They want to protect their children’s health and send them to college. They also want to own cars and take family vacations. However, aspirations alone are not enough; middle class families know that to achieve these goals they must work hard and save."


In other words, "The Middle-Class" consists of everyone who cares about their children's health and future and their own retirement and who want cars and vacations.  In other words, EVERYONE.

We see this loose definition of the "middle-class" in discussions about taxes.  The "fiscal cliff" deal was lauded by many Democrats as a "middle-class" tax cut; however, it cut taxes for incomes up to $400,000.  Apparently, according to Congress, $400,00 is apparently still "middle-class."

Rick Santorum hated the term "middle-class" because in his deluded mind the United States was a classless society.  Tell that, though, to his campaign website, which talked about how he would rebuild the middle-class.

The universal praise of and love for "The Middle-Class" reminds me of early 20th century analyses of why socialism never took off in the United States; writers like H. G. Wells saw the United States, which never had a hereditary aristocracy, as a thoroughly bourgeois nation, and an American Dream defined as "get rich" replaces class consciousness with material aspiration and elides the question of whether those aspirations ever turn into reality.

The idea of the "bourgeoisie of all" allows politicians to avoid addressing how both the continued existence of poverty and the vast inequality of wealth threaten the health of democracy---and to avoid having to think of solutions.

The word "middle-class" shouldn't disappear entirely from our political debate, but I'd say put it under close supervision until a politician is willing to give an actual definition.

"Balance": Obama loves to speak about "balanced" deficit reduction, and so do his surrogates.  The call for a "balanced" approach is a Democratic Party talking point because it sounds nice.  We all love "balance," right? 

What, however, does balance actually mean in the minds of those in the laboratory where political talking points are concocted?

Does it mean an equal amount of spending cuts and tax increases, a 1:1 ratio?  Let's look at the President's plan for reducing The Deficit and replacing sequestration.

The White House plan has $930 billion in spending cuts and $680 billion in tax increases.  That's a 1.37:1 ratio.  If you put 1.37 pounds on one side of a scale, and 1 pound on the other, THEY WOULD NOT BALANCE.

The White House infographic also highlights past deficit reduction measures:  $1.4 billion in cuts and roughly $600 billion in revenue.  That's a 2.3:1 ratio.  The 1.37:1 is only close to "balanced" if we take into perspective the glaringly unbalanced nature of the past rounds of deficit reduction.

It is worthy of note as well that the President's plan cuts more from Social Security and veterans' benefits ($130 billion from "superlative" CPI) than it does  from the defense budget ($100 billion). 

If we want a true 1:1 balance, then we have to go to the House Progressive Caucus's Balancing Act.

But, as we all know, that plan is DOA.