We're going to start with Ad Populum:
My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. (Applause.)
And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.
Obama is saying these common values we often call "the American Dream" are the reason for our large middle class and strong economy. He is telling the reader that these values are the recipe for a successful economy, and since these values accompany his policies, then his policies are the answer. This is nothing new. Often, we see rhetoricians (not rhetorists like I so brainlessly posted in my last Blog) us ideological values as reasons for a more concrete, adjustment in the state of the economy. By doing so, he is misusing common values and giving us a perfect example of Ad Populum.
The next example represents the use of a Straw Man fallacy:
Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
Here, Obama is is misrepresenting the opposing argument. Obama oversimplifies the fiscal conservative ideal to one line that indicates stereotyped, negative intentions. It is almost like he is putting words in their mouth to spin their message so that it works in his favor. In my opinion, this fallacy goes hand in hand with the general nature of politics. It's just a race for the next, best straw man.
My last example shows a Red Herring fallacy. In this example, Obama is pointing out a fallacy called upon in a fiscal conservative argument:
Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
In the last line of this section, Obama says, "And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty." The argument brings in a topic that is completely unrelated. The price of liberty? That has nothing to do with prosperity trickling down. Thus, bringing in a reason that is completely unrelated to the argument makes this an example of Red Herring. This, too, is a logical fallacy very well liked by politicians, but rhetoric is filled with these little gems they call "logical fallacies." All you've got to do is look!
No comments:
Post a Comment