The Logic of Presidential Debates

Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon during the first televised U.S. presidential debate in 1960. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns for generations. The format of the presidential debate is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions directly and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames resulting in scripted responses rather than a true debate of ideas . Despite being heavily dominated by sound-bites and political spin, presidential debates still offer a rare opportunity for the electorate to see and hear candidates side by side.

However, the scripted nature of presidential debates allows candidates to purposefully engage in logical fallacies in order to win political arguments. Logical fallacies are intended to appeal to emotion rather than reason and include:

Ad hominem– the candidate attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.

False Dichotomy – the candidate claims their conclusion is one of only two extreme options, when in fact there may be completely different alternatives. The candidate then goes on to show the alternative position as clearly outrageous in order to present their preferred conclusion as correct.

False Equivalence – the candidate describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none

Irrelevant Conclusion – the candidate presents an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question in an attempt to shift the focus of debate to “safer” but less relevant ground.

Straw Man Argument – the candidate misrepresents the position of their opponent by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequal proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Proof by Verbosity – the candidate tries to overwhelm those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, appears to be well-researched, and it is so superficially laborious to untangle and fact check that the argument is accepted as valid.

As you watch the presidential debates, try to count how many times the candidates rely on the above logical fallacies to answer or avoid answering a particular question.

– TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• YouTube to live stream 2012 presidential debates for first time (sfluxe.com)
• Using Debates to Turn Electoral Tide – Difficult but Not Impossible – NYTimes.com (policyabcs.wordpress.com)

Philosophically Important, Legally Irrelevant

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of independence (1776) were all of British descent. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This week, Americans around the country will enjoy spectacular fireworks displays and gorge on countless hotdogs in celebration of the nation’s independence. The Fourth of July holiday would not be possible if it was not for the Declaration of Independence, one of the most well-known and quoted documents in the United States of AMerica:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

However, most Americans do not realize that the declaration itself is not a legal document, but merely an announcement declaring the 13 American colonies as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. The Declaration of Independence may not be legally binding; it is nonetheless, the philosophical foundation of what will latter become the American political culture and American jurisprudence. It solidified within the American psyche, the idea of rights untouchable by government and the notion of liberty and justice for all.

Happy Fourth of July!

–TERRANCE MULLINS

The Tool of Taxation

Old hammer during reconstruction of the building in Pleszew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In graduate school a professor of mine often referred to the “toolbox of government.”  The characterization must have resonated with me because I still use it in my own classes almost fifteen years later.  Of course he was referring to the variety of actions that governments at all levels have at their disposal to implement and otherwise enforce public policy.  For our purposes we can narrow the contents of the “toolbox” down to the bare minimum:

• The power of government to deprive a person of liberty (think incarceration and in the most extreme form, the death penalty)—the hammer.
• The power of government to deprive a person of property (think real property and money)—the hammer.

Confused?  Don’t be.  Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) is credited with expressing the position that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  In this regard the power to tax is the power to punish those who violate the law, ignore regulations, or otherwise challenge the general welfare—the hammer.  The power to tax citizens and residents, businesses, corporations, is generally available to most governments—from Congress to your local water district.  Check your text books, one of the first concurrent or shared powers listed is the power to tax.  Moreover, taxes are ubiquitous—fees: taxes; assessments: taxes; dues: taxes; levies: taxes; taxes: taxes.  The power to tax is the power of government to deprive.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) , much will be made of the taxation aspect of the now upheld health care reform package—especially the individual mandate, which requires people capable of paying for health insurance to do so or risk a penalty (tax).  What do you think, is it the most intrusive tax ever devised by government (in this case by democrats)?  Is it a new tax?  Is it a tax increase (even though it only applies to people who don’t buy their own health insurance—and wouldn’t we otherwise call these people free-riders or equate them to people who don’t buy car insurance and drive up all of our rates)?  With all the hammers we get hit with every day, is this the one we’re really going to object to?  Ouch!  I know how to fix it; where’s my hammer?!

–DENNIS FALCON

MPSL VLog: Occupy McAmerica

The First Amendment protects your right to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  But does it protect the right to gather in public spaces and ask for large-scale change?  Professor Gaffaney explains.

National Debt and Paying for Public Goods

I just recently checked to see how much each person currently living in the United States owes toward the national debt.  As of today (mid-October 2011) the figure is:

$47,685.89

In other words, even after the taxes I paid last year and the year before (etc.) I still owe the above amount in future taxes just to help pay off the current outstanding debt.  And,

• This is if we stopped increasing the debt as of NOW
• This may not include interest (which we now know can take a hit based on what Congress and the President do or don’t do)
• I don’t know how this figure treats corporations and businesses (which we now know that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court believe to have many of the same rights as individual people)

But back to what I owe.  I am fifty-two years old and hope to be a tax-paying American for at least another thirteen years.  That comes out to about $3668 a year over and above what I will be paying in taxes that pay for government programs and services that do not add to the debt.  And if I live to be eighty the figure drops to $1703 a year over and above what I will be paying in taxes that pay for government programs and services that do not add to the debt.

Taxation of citizens and residents by government may be necessary to pay for public goods that are deemed necessary and important by a society.  Maybe the most important part of that concept is to “pay for public goods.”  In other words, we should be taxed to actually pay for what government does.  Robert Smith puts a different spin on the national debt by looking at the last time it was completely paid off.  I don’t know about you, but there has to be a difference between massive cross-generational debt and responsible use of debt to finance some parts of our public load.  What do you think?

–DENNIS FALCON

MPSL VLog: Cooperative Federalism in Joplin, Missouri

President Obama promised that the federal government will stick around to help Joplin, Missouri rebuild after it was devastated by a tornado.  Professor Gaffaney explains how the federal government decides when to intervene, and why some states are on their own.

MPSL VLOG: Eminent Domain vs.Private Property Rights

The government can take private land for public use.  A recent case rejects a city’s attempt to label an area “blighted” in order to seize the land.  What limits are placed on local governments who want to redevelop low-income areas? Professor Gaffaney explains.