The Civil Debate Page

Analysis: Governor Bobby Jindal's response to President Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:50:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, February 24, 2009]:

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go -- when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people. There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.

Comment: Is this really the lesson that we're forced to accept by this anecdote about Hurricane Katrina?

Suppose someone offered this anecdote, and the accompanying lesson: "Government mandated that airbags be put in cars. Just such an airbag saved my grandmother's life in a car accident that otherwise would have killed her. There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is found in our government." It doesn't seem like we're really compelled to draw this lesson from this anecdote. Likewise, the lesson Jindal tries to draw from the Hurricane Katrina anecdote is also a bit of a stretch.

Granted, there are times when government policies and regulations create needless obstacles and do more harm than good. But there are also times when government regulations and policies are helpful, and do more good than harm. To cite examples of either case and then come up with a general lesson about where "the strength" of the country lies is unfounded.

***

That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs. But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history -- with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending.

Comment: Jindal is describing Democratic policies on taxes and spending as being motivated by a distrust in people. Democrats, he says, don't trust us "to make wise decisions with our own money".

This is a caricature, however: all government spending involves taking money from people and spending it in a different way than the people would have spent it. The only way to avoid this is to not have ANY taxes or government spending at all, and neither Jindal nor Obama -- nor any other Republicans or Democrats -- are proposing that. Jindal himself says that some of the spending items proposed by Obama and the Democrats "make sense": does that mean he "distrusts" how the people would have spent that money? No, of course not.

Jindal doesn't agree with all of the Democrats' spending proposals. He thinks that lowering some taxes and cutting some spending would create more jobs and economic growth than the Democrats' proposals. But he needs to defend this assertion (just like Democrats need to defend THEIR claims that their proposals would create more jobs and growth than Republican proposals). But Jindal doesn't do this. Instead of giving us evidence for the claim that Republican economic proposals are better, he just dismisses Democratic proposals by saying that the latter are based on a "distrust" of the people (even though his own spending proposals are based on a similar "distrust").

***

Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did.

Comment: This seems like another caricature of Democratic proposals.

It's not as if Democrats are saying, "Hey, let's borrow money that our kids (and not us!) will have to pay back so we can buy a bunch of stuff we don't need." Rather, Democrats are increasing spending (granted, by borrowing more money) so that they can spend money on things they believe we -- both current and future generations -- DO need. Democrats believe that what they are spending money on are programs that are important to our prosperity in the near term and in the longer term, and that the benefits of that spending will outweigh the cost of having to repay the loans.

Now, just because they believe that doesn't mean that they're correct. It could be that they're wrong about what programs are vital to our prosperity. A detailed, substantive empirical debate is needed here -- from both Jindal (and Republicans) and Obama (and Democrats) -- regarding what policies will result in what costs and benefits. But Jindal doesn't give us a detailed argument supporting the claim that Republican policies are better, he just asserts it. And he offers up a caricature of Democrats as knowingly and intentionally spending borrowed money on superfluous programs that yield no benefit.

***

We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.

Comment: This is an appeal for bipartisanship, an appeal to unify the country, along with a condemnation of "partisan politics" (in other words, "negative politics").

Appeals for bipartisanship and condemnations of partisan politics are sort of the flip sides of one another. And they usually share the same flaw: a lack of specificity. What, in particular, is supposed to count as good, bipartisan behavior, and what counts as bad, partisan behavior?

Such is the case here, with Jindal's appeal. How, in particular, do we put aside partisanship on the issue of health care? Moreover, how do we do this in such a way that will make private health care "affordable and accessible" to everyone? What is it that Republicans need to "put aside" in order to get this result, and what is it that Democrats need to "put aside"? Jindal doesn't say.

As with most political issues, there are substantive disagreements on health care. People have beliefs -- different beliefs -- about what is the best course of action. Is Jindal instructing people to simply put aside their beliefs about what is the best course of action on health care? If he's not saying that, what is he saying?

Appeals for unity need to include details.

***

Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.

Comment: This is standard caricature. Just like Democrats, liberals, and "left-wingers" typically caricature Republicans, conservatives, and "right-wingers" as being greedy, uncompassionate people who don't care about the poor, the standard caricature in the other direction is that Democrats, etc. want government to run peoples' lives rather than have people be responsible for themselves.

Both caricatures are nonsense. There's a real debate about how much assistance -- how many services -- government should and shouldn't give. Should government provide roads, a police force, emergency services, unemployment benefits, education, dental care, etc.? These are legitimate questions.

Unfortunately, we like to simply caricature anyone who disagrees with us on these questions:

"If you don't agree with me that the government should be providing X, then I'm going to accuse you of being a social Darwinist who doesn't care about human suffering at all."

or:

"If you don't agree with me that the government shouldn't be providing X, then I'm going to accuse you of being a communist who doesn't believe people have any responsibility for their own well-being."

Such is the case here with Jindal. He should stick to arguing about what moral priorities we should have, and what policies he believes have the best empirical track record with respect to those priorities.

But saying that the people who disagree with him don't put their hope in the American people and want to make the American people dependents on government is simply caricature. If Jindal doesn't want his own views to be caricatured, then he shouldn't do it to the views of others.

-- Civ.

Analysis: President Barack Obama's Address to Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:28:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of President Barack Obama's address to Congress [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, February 24, 2009]:

What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more. Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities -- as a government or as a people.

Comment: This claim -- that we as a government and as a people haven't been taking responsibility for our future or boldly confronting the challenges we face -- is questionable. Part of the problem with it is that it's not clear what he's asserting.

Is Obama making a claim about peoples' motivations? Is he saying that, up until this point, nobody was trying to take responsibility for our future or trying to boldly confront the challenges the U.S. faces? If so, then what he's saying is false. Of course there were people trying to do just that. They may not have been advocating the same policies as Obama, but they clearly had the same goal.

Obama might instead be making a claim about what policies will effectively address our problems. In other words, Obama could be saying that, up until this point, we weren't adopting the policies that will successfully confront the challenges the U.S. faces and thus secure our future. Though people were previously trying to take responsibility for our future and confront certain challenges, they weren't implementing policies that -- in Obama's view -- will actually achieve those goals.

This second claim is not straightforwardly false. But its truth depends on whether or not Obama's policies really are effective, whether they really will fix the problems we currently face.

And making that case involves making an awful lot of empirical predictions, predictions about what effects various policies (regarding taxes, spending, trade agreements, regulations, etc.) will have on various economic elements (on unemployment, on economic growth, on inflation, etc.).

Contrary to the confidence displayed by our politicians and pundits, such predictions are not easy to make [CDP: How Easy is it to Understand the Economy? February 12, 2009].

If Obama wants to claim that only a certain set of policies will adequately solve our currently problems -- and this seems to be a central assertion of his address to Congress -- then he needs to defend that claim.

However, as is typical of politicians making economic claims -- or empirical claims in general -- he provides very little in the way of evidence to defend this claim.

***

I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

Comment: Obama is saying that, in order to fix our currently problems, we must understand how they came to be. But he doesn't make much of a case for this claim.

It's not always the case that you need to know how a problem started in order to fix it. For instance, you don't need to know how a tire became flat: you can just replace it and the problem is fixed, without requiring any knowledge about the problem's origin. Likewise, clogged drains can often be cleared without know how they became clogged, and broken bones can often be mended without knowing how they were broken.

Sometimes you do need to know the origin of a problem in order to find the solution to that problem: this is often the case in medicine. Doctors often need to diagnose an ailment before they can effectively treat it (though not always, as in the aforementioned broken bones).

So, Obama needs to explain why our current situation is different from the flat tire or clogged drain situation. That is, he needs to explain why it is that we have to understand the origin of our problem before we can fix it.

***

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.

Comment: As with his earlier claim that we should once more "confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future," is Obama making a claim about motivations or about what policies have (or have had) what results?

Is he saying that people in the past era sought short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity? Is he saying that people gutted regulations in order to make a quick profit? Maybe some people had these motivations, but certainly many did not, in which case Obama is making a false assertion.

If, on the other hand, he's saying that -- whatever peoples' motivations were -- the policies of the past had good short-term results but bad long-term ones, then that is a statement relying on a host of empirical assertions which he has yet to back up.

Obama Demonizes Republicans

Obama clearly makes a disparaging caricature in the above quote. He says that people -- by which he means the administration of President George W. Bush in 2001 -- chose to take the government surplus as an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy. In other words, he is saying that the Bush administration was seeking to enrich the wealthy.

This is accusation is frequently made by Democrats (of which Obama is one) against Republicans (of which Bush is one), and is a standard example of how Democrats demonize Republicans.

Republicans often call for tax cuts, particularly for those who have higher incomes. There's a legitimate debate about whether this is a good idea. On the one hand, lowering taxes might result in the government not getting enough revenue in order to pay for worthwhile programs (although there's also a big debate between Republicans and Democrats about what constitutes a worthwhile program). On the other hand, lowering taxes will give higher income earners more money to spend, which could have lots of benefits for the economy in general, including people with lower incomes.

There's a lot of elements to this debate, largely involving empirical predictions about the effects of different tax and spending policies, as well as debates about which moral priorities should take precedence.

For Obama to sum up this complex debate as simply being a matter of Republicans wanting to give more wealth to the wealthy is nothing less than a caricature, a caricature that serves to demonize Republicans.

It is further misleading in that the phrase "transfer wealth to the wealthy" makes it sound as if Bush was taking money from people who aren't wealthy and giving it to rich people. But this is not the case: lowering taxes on higher income earners means that less money is taken from them. It's not the case that lower income earners were having to hand over more of their money to higher income earners.

Obama often talks about the need for bipartisanship and setting a higher standard of civil discourse: accusing Republicans of taking money from poor people in order to give it to rich people doesn't fit in with either of those goals.

***

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That's why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Comment: Again, Obama is making key empirical claims without backing them up.

What is the proof that not acting "would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years"? And what is the proof that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the action that will avoid that economic outcome?

Is Obama Appealing to Fear?

Obama is clearly urging us in a certain direction in the name of avoiding a perilous outcome. In other words, he is appealing to fear.

But there's nothing wrong with appealing to fear, in principle. There are things that it's quite reasonable for us to be afraid of, and there are actions that it's quite reasonable for us to take in the name of avoiding what we fear.

Politicians routinely appeal to fear, and they often accuse one another of appealing to fear. Democrats and Republicans frequently accuse one another of fear-mongering and using scare tactics on matters such as the economy, national security, public health, etc.

When they do this, the question we have to ask is whether the fear being appealed to is legitimate, and whether a legitimate response to that fear is being proposed. Appealing to fear only becomes "fear-mongering" and "scare tactics" in the negative sense when the fear is not legitimate or the course of action is not appropriate.

Judging whether someone is appealing to fear in the negative sense involves making predictions -- again, empirical judgments -- about whether something bad is going to happen, and whether adopting a certain course of action will prevent that bad thing from happening.

Because Obama doesn't go much into the empirical substance -- because he doesn't lay out clearly and conclusively the bad outcome we will run into unless we adopt his policies -- he doesn't give us a reason to believe that he's making a legitimate appeal to fear rather than engaging in inappropriate fear-mongering.

***

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government -- and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.

Comment: Again, this is an appeal to fear, based on a host of empirical claims that Obama does not do much to substantiate in this speech.

***

I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I. So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you -- I get it. But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job -- our job -- is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility. I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage.

Comment: Obama seems to be saying that at least some -- if not all -- of the objections raised to mismanagement of bailout funds should be dismissed and ignored because they amount to governing "out of anger" and giving in to "the politics of the moment". In other words, he's rejecting that class of objections as being frivolous, and not based on moral considerations.

Now, we certainly SHOULD reject frivolous objections, but Obama doesn't spell out which objections are frivolous. It's not the case than anyone who objects to his policies is raising a frivolous objection, giving in to anger and momentary political considerations, rather than appealing to legitimate moral considerations.

So, which objections in particular does Obama believe are frivolous?

***

I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

Comment: This is probably correct. It's very unlikely that government has no legitimate or productive role to play whatsoever in supporting our prosperity.

However, who has actually said otherwise? Granted, there are people -- Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, etc. -- who believe government should play LESS of a role in our lives and prosperity than Obama envisions. But that doesn't mean they advocate government having ZERO role whatsoever. So who is Obama rebutting with this claim?

It sounds like Obama might be caricaturing those opponents who call for less government intervention than he does. By falsely describing those opponents as being opposed to all government, he can brush them aside easily, like straw men.

But this is a false victory, since it is only achieved by misrepresenting his opponents.

Obama needs to specify who this comment is aimed at in order for us to judge whether it is fair criticism or dishonest caricature.

***

History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world. In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

Comment: Once more, Obama is making some broad empirical claims without much detail or defense.

In particular, he doesn't answer these questions: would any of these things have happened without government intervention? Would they have been accomplished with less efficiency? Is it always the case that government catalyzes private enterprise in a positive way? Does it ever influence private enterprise negatively?

The examples Obama gives are not analyzed, and cannot be taken as exhaustively representing the effects of government intervention on private enterprise.

***

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

Comment: There are several claims here concerning climate change (i.e., global warming), national security, and the cleanliness and profitability of renewable energy that are given little if any substantiation.

***

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade.

Comment: Another broad claim, comparing health care reform of the last thirty days to that of the last ten years, that is given little substantiation.

***

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American.

Comment: Is dropping out of school really quitting on your country? Is that the same as saying it's unpatriotic? Can we characterize other personal or economic decisions as "quitting on your country"?

If he wants to say that dropping out of school is unacceptable as a matter of morality or personal self-interest, etc., that's one thing. But saying that it's unacceptable with respect to supporting your country is another. It opens up a host of questions about what OTHER actions are unacceptable with respect to supporting your country.

Which, in turn, takes us back to all the discussions in recent years about patriotism, wearing flag pins, supporting the Iraq War, supporting the troops, paying more in taxes, etc. [For instance, see: CDP: Joe Biden Calls it "Patriotic" to Pay More in Taxes, October 7, 2008].

***

... we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

Comment: Obama doesn't clearly state how this furthers the cause of fairness (or "balance," for that matter, though I take it he's using the term as a synonym for fairness).

Part of this is because fairness (or justice, to use another synonym) is an ambiguous term, and can refer to several different moral considerations. And, even when it's clear which moral consideration is being alluded to, it's often vague how that consideration applies to concrete examples.

Like most politicians who raise the issue of fairness, Obama does not give any details that would alleviate either the vagueness or the ambiguity.

More, does this same standard of fairness apply to other countries? Should other countries do the same to companies that hire workers and invest in the U.S.? Would that be fair?

***

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend -- because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists -- because living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.

Comment: This claim -- "living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger" -- is almost certainly false if it means that there is never a conflict between our values (for instance, respecting human rights) and our safety.

It is certainly the case that we face moral dilemmas, situations where two moral considerations come into conflict and push us in different directions. And it is not difficult to imagine (or even to cull from recent history) situations in which our moral desire to respect privacy, due process, the rule of law, etc. comes into conflict with our desire to protect innocent people from harm and terrorism.

For Obama to simply assert that no such dilemmas exist -- that abiding by one of these moral considerations NEVER involves compromising or giving up on another -- is false.

For instance, since Obama became president, the U.S. has continued to bomb targets in Pakistan [AP: Airstrike Kills 7 in Pakistan, March 2, 2009]. These strikes are done in order to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and to kill members or allies of the terrorist groups Al Qaeda, but they occasionally harm or kill innocent Pakistanis.

Isn't the killing of those innocents a bad thing (even if it is believed to be justified in the name of achieving another moral goal)? Isn't this exactly a case of us choosing one moral consideration over another, because the two are in conflict? Don't these strikes represent actions that we take in order to make the U.S. safer, even though they violate the U.S. value of protecting innocent life?

Again, for Obama to say no such conflict exists is demonstrably false.

***

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

Comment: In describing the "new era," Obama is caricaturing the previous administration under Bush.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not attempt to meet "the threats of this century" alone, it regularly met and collaborated with allies such as Great Britain, Japan, Pakistan, etc.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not "shun the negotiating table," it regularly spoke with opponents and competitors in matters including trade and military conflict, such as its negotiations with North Korea regarding that country's nuclear program.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not "ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm," it regularly acknowledged its enemies -- again, it sometimes even negotiated with them, which is incompatible with ignoring them.

Now, this doesn't mean we have to agree with the way the Bush administration carried out any or all of these functions. Certainly, Obama believes there is a lot to be desired in the way the Bush administration performed on these fronts, and it is entirely fair for him to offer criticism.

But it is not acceptable for him to mischaracterize the Bush administration by saying that they did not work with others, they did not negotiate, and they ignored their foes. Such claims are false.

***

Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege -- one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth -- to become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial. But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary.

Comment: Here, Obama says it is easy to lose sight of the responsibility of governing, and to "become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial."

He doesn't clearly spell out what he means by "petty" and "trivial" behavior, though. As with most politicians who denounce "negative politics" and ask us to improve our political environment, Obama doesn't specify what we're to avoid and what we're to emulate. He sticks to the abstract, without giving any clear examples of good or bad behavior.

To make matters worse, Obama has made several violations of civil debate in this very speech, particularly with respect to distorting and caricaturing the views of his opponents. When people hear these caricatures, and then hear Obama calling for a higher standard of debate, they are likely to conclude that the two are compatible with one another, even though they aren't.

***

I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground. And if we do -- if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."

Comment: Obama is asking Americans not to question the patriotism of their opponents, not to insinuate that they don't love their country. There is some value in this sentiment, since one of the problems with out discussions of political and moral matters is that we tend to think the worst about anyone who disagrees with us (for instance, to think that they are unpatriotic or have sinister motivations).

But there are also some problems with this sentiment. There are the more abstract considerations, such as that people sometimes DO have unpatriotic or sinister motivations (though probably not nearly as often as we'd like to think), and that motivations and intentions -- good or bad, patriotic or unpatriotic, noble or sinister -- don't play a terribly conclusive role when it comes to evaluating actions or policies as being morally or politically acceptable.

But, more concretely, Obama doesn't do a very good job of living up to this sentiment in this very speech. He has repeatedly caricatured his opponents, and he has demonized them in at least one instance.

If he really knows that "every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed," then why does he keep disparaging so many of them?

***

Conclusion

Obama's address to Congress was a disappointment on several fronts when it comes to civil, productive debate.

He made many empirical claims without defending them. And he caricatured and disparaged his opponents even while he was calling for us to live up to a higher standard of debate.

Of course it's difficult to defend in depth EVERY empirical claim that your policies depend upon. And of course it can be challenging to ALWAYS be respectful of your opponents views, and to never be dismissive of them.

But the short shrift Obama gave to the empirical assertions he made was not even close to adequate. And the consistently unfair descriptions he gave of his opponents were made even more outrageous by being followed with a call for civil discourse.

-- Civ.

How Easy is it to Understand the Economy?

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:52:00 +0000

There is no shortage of opinion regarding the current financial crisis. The media is full of people who seem quite certain about what got us to where we are today and/or what will get us out.

For instance, several candidates are put forward as being the cause (or causes) of the current economic hardship:

sub-prime loans, or the bundling and sale of sub-prime loans as securities
too much, too little, bad or unenforced government regulation
tax cuts
too much consumer spending and/or debt
too much government spending and/or deficit spending
low consumer savings
bad monetary policy

And several candidates are put forth as what will be the cure (or cures):

tax cuts
consumer spending
government spending
better monetary policy
bank bailouts or rescues to shore up credit

Whatever the details, those weighing in on the financial crisis are essentially making empirical claims, claims about how the world works. In particular, they're making claims about how people behave in the world. Economics -- the study of meeting wants and needs, and what people do in order to satisfy their wants and needs -- is a social science, which makes it an empirical issue.

We often act and speak as if we know a great deal about the empirical world. But, in fact, gaining knowledge about the empirical world is often difficult, and the rampant disagreement about the causes of and cures for the financial crisis is testament to that.

Despite people's confidence and insistence that they KNOW what caused the financial crisis, and/or that they KNOW how to reverse it, what do they really know for certain? Is it really that obvious what caused the financial crisis, and how to reverse it?

If there is any doubt about how much ignorance there is of the empirical world -- despite our confidence to the contrary -- consider some related events.

The Great Depression

The worldwide economic downturn known as the Great Depression ended decades ago -- in the late 1930s or the 1940s -- and has been the subject of intense study ever since. Despite this, there is still an enormous amount of disagreement regarding what caused it and what ended it.

The 1929 stock market crash, the gold standard, protectionism, bank failures, flawed monetary policy, etc., are all touted as causes by different people. The reasons for the end of the Great Depression are also hotly debated: some say that the New Deal programs offered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed the downturn, while others say that FDR's New Deal prolonged it. It is also often claimed that industrial production stemming from World War II is what ended the Great Depression.

The point is this: even though The Great Depression is a story with an ending -- and not a current, ongoing event -- and even though it has been investigated by various people from various backgrounds over several decades, it is still something of a mystery.

If there's still disagreement over the economics and causality of the Great Depression, which happened 70 years ago -- if THAT is still a topic of dispute -- then how could what's going on NOW be obvious?

The War in Iraq

Another example to consider is the War in Iraq. This is not, of course, primarily an economic event, but -- like economics -- war also involves predictions about how people will behave in the world. And, like today's financial crisis, the War in Iraq is an ongoing current event that has received immense attention and scrutiny.

When invading Iraq in early 2003, President George W. Bush and his administration were sure of several things: that it would be relatively easy to provide security, keep the peace, and administer Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his regime; that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or ongoing WMD programs would be found; that oil revenue would cover the cost of the U.S. military presence; that a stable democracy could be easily established, etc.

But the U.S. quickly encountered problems in Iraq on a variety of fronts. And the Bush administration frequently refused to admit that they had made errors in their predictions or their understanding of the situation.

Critics excoriated Bush and said he was incapable of admitting mistakes and changing tack. The U.S. presence in Iraq was sharply debated both nationally and internationally, and various solutions from a variety of sources -- for example, Iraq Study Group -- were offered. Many insisted that it was time for the U.S. to pull its forces out of Iraq.

Then, in January 2007, Bush announced a new strategy for the U.S. in Iraq, a strategy which came to be called the "surge". It called for a redeployment of U.S. forces already in Iraq, as well as the addition of thousands more soldiers. Critics denounced the plan, saying that it was more of the same, that it would not work, that it was not in the interests of the U.S., etc. Again, there was intense scrutiny of the new plan.

But the "surge" did not fail. Today, violence in Iraq is down and provincial elections have just been held. Granted, the War in Iraq is still an ongoing event, and the situation could change. But the "surge" was clearly not the failure its critics said it would be. And those critics are now just as reluctant as the Bush administration to admit their mistakes. Currently, there appears to be more interest in talking about the problems in Afghanistan than the successes in Iraq.

Conclusion

Our ignorance of the empirical world -- illustrated by both the Great Depression and the War in Iraq -- is very easy to see. But we tend not to acknowledge it.

Instead, we approach new problems -- for instance, the current financial crisis -- with a boldness and certainty that we haven't earned. We assert strongly that we KNOW this or that about the cause of the crisis and the way to reverse it. And, when someone disagrees with us, we quickly dismiss them rather than trying to slowly and carefully convince them that we're correct. Perhaps this is because, if we DID go through the careful process of trying to prove our that our beliefs about the empirical world are correct, we would find how many embarrassing questions we don't have answers to.

This, naturally, is just a symptom of the already poor standard of debate in the U.S.

I'm not arguing for absolute certainty: often, we have to act without complete knowledge of the situation. But, if we are going to act without having complete knowledge -- and we often have to -- we should at least confess to it, which means not being so dismissive of anyone who disagrees.

After all, of the people who are now so certain of what caused the financial crisis and of how to fix it, how many of them predicted it beforehand? Few, if any.

I'm not saying that those who couldn't predict it are wrong about how to fix it (that would be ad hominem reasoning of the "can't fix your own mistakes" variety). But you'd think that having failed to see it beforehand would prompt a degree of humility about knowing how to fix it.

We don't always know the future. It would be nice if our politicians, pundits, and leaders would be less caustic to those who disagree with their predictions.

-- Civ.

Analysis: President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of President Barack Obama's inaugural address [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, January 20, 2009]:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Comment: This is attributing a lot to the people who attended -- or even who watched -- Obama's inauguration. Did all of them clearly choose hope and unity over fear and discord, and did they all have that as a reason for attending? Did people attend in order to renounce petty grievances, false promises, recriminations and worn out dogmas? It sounds like Obama is offering up the dubious "Americans want..." assertion.

More to the point, what beliefs, views and attitudes, in particular, count as petty grievances, false promises, recriminations and worn out dogmas? Of course, we all oppose such things in the abstract: but different people are going to come to different conclusions about whether a certain belief is a worn out ideology or a proven fact, or whether a certain attitude is a petty grievance or a legitimate complaint.

Without being specific about what beliefs, views and attitudes people are supposed to be unburdening themselves of, aren't people likely to reach a self-serving conclusion? That is, won't they conclude that their OWN beliefs, views and attitudes are just fine the way they are, and that it's their OPPONENTS who must change THEIR beliefs, views and attitudes? And won't that leave us stuck with the "conflict and discord" that's already present?

I understand that Obama's speech is intended as inspirational rhetoric, but it should still be judged according to whether it makes clear, truthful assertions. Obama's words are so unspecific and ambiguous that it's unclear what, precisely, we are supposed to do in order to improve our conduct.

This, of course, is very common. When politicians make accusations of negative politics or call for us to set a higher standard of debate and unite as a country -- as Obama is doing here in his inaugural -- they typically speak in the abstract. They don't lay out clear standards and definitions of what counts as good behavior versus bad behavior, and then apply those standards in an even-handed way to specific examples.

***

It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Comment: Again, this is attributing a lot to a fairly large group of people (akin to the "Americans want..." assertion). All the people who worked hard or sacrificed in the past, all the people to whom we owe gratitude for their past contributions, were ALL of them motivated by the ideals that Obama mentions?

***

Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Comment: This sounds like a jab at special interests. But what is a special interest (or a "narrow" interest)? Which interests in particular are narrow, and which ones aren't? And why are narrow interests bad, or outweighed by interests that aren't narrow?

As usual, the derision of special interests (or "narrow" interests) is made in such a non-specific way that it's hard to figure out what it means, or what it should prompt us to do in particular.

***

We will restore science to its rightful place

Comment: This is an implicit criticism of the previous administration of President George W. Bush, which Obama disagrees with on matters such as global warming and climate change, as well as stem cell research.

Such disagreement is legitimate. But Obama's words don't cast Bush as disagreeing with particular scientific theories or about how our moral priorities to scientific research: he's deriding Bush as being opposed to science altogether.

That's a needless insult. If Obama thinks Bush is wrong on scientific matters, then he should defend that belief. But to imply that Bush doesn't care about science at all is going too far.

***

There are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. ... What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

Comment: This is not a fair description of what people have been arguing about for the past several decades. The argument has ALWAYS been about whether or not government is working effectively: one group has argued that it isn't working effectively because it is too big (or that it does too much), and another group has argued that it isn't working effectively because it is not big enough (or that it doesn't do enough). And that's still the argument today.

Of course, that's not how these groups have described one another in this debate. Unfortunately (but predictably), they have routinely caricatured each other: the group that thinks government is too big and is doing too much says that their opponents just want bigger government REGARDLESS of whether it is effective and efficient; and the group that thinks government is too small and is doing too little says that their opponents just want smaller government REGARDLESS of whether it is effective and efficient.

Obama is wrong to say that there is somehow a different argument going on now than there was previously, and that "cynics" are failing to see that. We face today the same, perfectly reasonable debate that we have always faced: what consequences will result from different government policies and laws (which is an empirical question), and what values should the government be defending or furthering (which is a question of moral obligation and priorities)?

This debate has seldom been conducted in a reasonable, respectful manner, and it would be an improvement if we'd start having it in a civil, productive way.

But it's not correct to say that cynics are somehow missing out on the real issue at stake.

***

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Comment: Is there anyone who has advocated having no watchful eye whatsoever on the markets? Certainly, there's a legitimate debate about HOW MUCH government regulation and oversight of markets there should be. But Obama sounds like he's crafting the debate as being between those who call for some oversight and those who call for none at all. Is that accurate?

Obama also implicitly describes the previous administration's economic policies as "favoring the prosperous". That's arguably a caricature, since it makes it sound like Obama's opponents simply want to help the rich, when they would insist that they're rewarding (or trying not to punish) those who are productive.

There's a legitimate debate about whether economic policy should focus on compassion and aiding the needy or on merit and rewarding productivity. At the very least, it's not obvious which consideration should win when the two come into conflict. For Obama to describe his opponents as "favoring the prosperous" is to fail to appreciate all the moral considerations at stake in our debate about economics.

Obama and his allies are often caricatured in the same way, which can be illustrated by re-tooling Obama's own statement: "A nation cannot prosper when it taxes only the productive." I'm sure Obama wouldn't consider this statement to be a fair assessment of his policies. He shouldn't inflict the same unfairness on his opponents.

***

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Comment: Obama is correct to say that our safety and our ideals (ideals such as liberty and human rights) are not always at odds. However, it's not obvious that they're NEVER at odds, either. Are they ALWAYS compatible? I doubt it.

Moral dilemmas (many examples of which you can find in the section on moral priorities) do exist, and safety and liberty will likely come into conflict on occasion.

When they do, what is Obama's solution? How does he prioritize safety and our ideals if and when they conflict?

***

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Comment: Again, this is attributing a lot to a large group of people (once more, see the "Americans want..." assertion). Did the generations who faced down fascism and communism really ALL share these beliefs about the use of force and alliances? There wasn't any disagreement among them?

Plus, is Obama claiming that the U.S. manifested "prudent use" of power in World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other conflicts against fascism and communism? Is that claim correct?

***

To those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders

Comment: Is Obama claiming that, up until now, affluent nations have been indifferent to the suffering outside their borders? Is that claim correct?

***

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

Comment: Obama is advocating that we return to the values of hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism.

This means, of course, that he believes that we haven't been exercising these values recently. Is that true, though?

More to the point, what do each of these values really mean? What do they demand of us in terms of our behavior? What are we to do if these values conflict?

In particular, what does "fair play" mean? I take "fair play" to be a synonym for "justice" and "fairness". But justice is an ambiguous term, involving distinct considerations such as need, merit, culpability and equality. (Note the above discussion about economic policy.) And their application is also controversial. So, what exactly does Obama mean when he says we've failed to engage in fair play, and what does he mean when he says we're going to engage in fair play now?

Without spelling out what exactly he means when he invokes these values, it's hard to say whether or not we've been failing to live up to them, or what we have to do in order to start living up to them.

Conclusion

Again, I realize that inaugural speeches are supposed to be about inspiration, not detail. But it's difficult to know (or to evaluate) what we're being inspired to do if the details aren't given.

As with many politicians and political speeches, much of what Obama said is so vague or ambiguous that it's hard to judge whether we should be inspired by it.

-- Civ.

Analysis: Obama's "Dos Caras" Ad Links McCain to Rush Limbaugh

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:10:00 +0000

Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign released an ad on September 15, 2008, with this content (both the TV and radio versions were aired in Spanish and appear below as translated into English):

OBAMA: I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.
NARRATOR: They want us to forget the insults we've put up with,
TEXT: "... stupid and unskilled Mexicans" -- Rush Limbaugh
NARRATOR: The intolerance.
TEXT: "Shut your mouth or get out!" -- Rush Limbaugh
NARRATOR: They made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces.
TEXT: Caused the failure of immigration reform -- McCain campaign advertisement
NARRATOR: One that lies just to get our vote, and another even worse, continues the policies of George Bush, putting the special interests ahead of working families. John McCain: more of the same old Republican tricks.

* YouTube: "Dos Caras" Ad
* YouTube: No Way Obama - Dos Caras "Two Faces" Translated
* Wash Post: Obama Invokes Rush Limbaugh in New Spanish-Language Ads (September 17, 2008)

The radio version of the ad also included the following:

NARRATOR: Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change.

McCain's "Which Side Are They On?" Ad

This ad from the Obama campaign was in part responding to an earlier ad from the McCain campaign, released on September 12, 2008 (which also aired in Spanish and appears below as translated into English):

NARRATOR: Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants.
TEXT: On our side?
NARRATOR: But are they? The press reports that their efforts were "poison pills" that made immigration reform fail.
TEXT: Caused the failure of immigration reform
NARRATOR: The result: No guest worker program.
TEXT: Result: guest worker program: no
NARRATOR: No path to citizenship.
TEXT: Result: path to citizenship: no
NARRATOR: No secure borders.
TEXT: Result: secure borders: no
NARRATOR: No reform.
TEXT: It didn't happen
NARRATOR: Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead.
TEXT: Ready to block a reform of immigration. But not ready to govern.
MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
TEXT: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee. Approved by John McCain.

* YouTube: Which Side Are They On?
* YouTube: McCain ad: Which Side Are They On?
* CNN: McCain ad slams Obama, Senate Democrats on immigration (September 13, 2008)
* WorldNetDaily: McCain TV ad blames Obama for 'amnesty' failure – in Spanish (September 18, 2008)

This ad from the McCain campaign blames Obama and other Democrats for the failure to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, a bill which would have granted legal residence to many illegal aliens.

(For the final vote, see the Senate web site: S. 1348 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007).)

This criticism is dubious. It's far from clear that Obama and the Senate Democrats were responsible for the bill not being passed. Senate procedure on passing legislation is fairly complicated, and it's arguable as to who deserves blame for any piece of legislation failing to get passed in the Senate. Suffice to say that, in the case of this immigration reform legislation, there were lots of people involved in the process -- both Republicans and Democrats, and even the President -- who could be considered for blame.

(The claim of Obama's radio ad -- that "John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party" -- is similarly dubious.)

At any rate, it's far from obvious that the Democrats should shoulder ALL the blame. McCain's ad mentions "press reports" that blame Democrats for killing the legislation. But the accuracy of these press reports is given scant attention, and -- even if they ARE correct -- they still fall short of saying that Democrats are SOLELY to blame.

Obama's Response

However, Obama's response went much further than simply saying that lots of people could be blamed for the death of the immigration reform bill.

Obama's "Dos Caras" ad essentially makes three points:

McCain is lying when he blames Democrats for the death of the immigration reform bill;
McCain wants to continue "the policies of George Bush, putting the special interests ahead of working families"; and,
McCain is friends with talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has called Mexicans "stupid and unskilled" and told immigrants to "shut up or get out".

The "Two Faces" Republicans Show

The Obama ad accuses Republicans of displaying two different sides or "faces" (I assume the ad means they are shown to the Spanish-speaking community, especially immigrants):

John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that lies just to get our vote, and another even worse, continues the policies of George Bush, putting the special interests ahead of working families.

But was McCain lying when he accused Democrats of killing the immigration reform bill? I agree McCain's accusation is questionable and not clearly true, but that's far from saying it's intentionally false. Obama's ad gives us no reason to believe that McCain's accusation is an intentional falsehood or a knowing and willful endorsement of false beliefs (i.e., a lie). If he wants to claim that it is, then he needs to back it the claim, not simply assert it.

As to the other "face" that Republicans show -- continuing "the policies of George Bush, putting the special interests ahead of working families" -- this is obviously an attempt to disparage Bush's (and Republican's) policies as failed policies. As is typical, however, Obama's ad gives little support to this assertion.

In addition, he provides no substance to the claim that McCain (and Bush and Republicans) put special interests ahead of working families, nor does he define what a "special interest" is or explain why "special interests" are bad.

The Quotes from Rush Limbaugh

The Obama ad engages in outright distortion in the way it quoted Limbaugh.

The quotes the Obama ad mentioned were:

stupid and unskilled Mexicans

And:

Shut your mouth or get out!

These are both direct quotes from Limbaugh. However, they are removed from their context in such a way as to make it seem like Limbaugh is saying that Mexicans are stupid and unskilled, and as telling immigrants (or, perhaps, Central and South American, or Spanish-speaking immigrants?) to shut up and leave.

But both of these impressions are false, as is evident when you consider the quotes in context.

"Stupid and Unskilled Mexicans"

Regarding the first quote, it was made by Limbaugh on his radio show in 1993, while he was supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Defending NAFTA against its critics, Limbaugh said:

If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.

* ABC News: From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo (September 17, 2008)

Limbaugh is responding to NAFTA critics who argue that the trade deal will cause the U.S. to lose jobs. In attempting to rebut this criticism, Limbaugh refers to "stupid", "uneducated", and "unskilled" people in both Mexico AND the U.S. He doesn't single out Mexicans as being stupid and unskilled. Nor does he say that ALL Mexicans are stupid and unskilled.

Limbaugh shouldn't have used the term "stupid" -- it is a derisive term unfairly assigning mental deficiency -- even if he was merely trying to mock NAFTA critics for what he saw as the low esteem that they held for unskilled laborers. But it is simply false for the Obama campaign to imply that Limbaugh was tarring all (or even only) Mexicans with the term. By quoting Limbaugh out of context, Obama's ad was making a false accusation of bigotry.

"Shut up or get out!"

The second quote -- "Shut up or get out!" -- was also taken out of context.

It was made on April 6, 2006, again on Limbaugh's radio show:

Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:

First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.

If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.

And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.

You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That's how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!

How do you say 'double standard' in Spanish? How about: 'No mas!'

* Politico: Limbaugh, hitting back over usage in ad, says Obama "stoking racism" (September 17, 2008)

What Limbaugh was trying to do here was to expose what he saw as a double standard: the abundant criticism of the harshness U.S. immigration laws versus the absence of criticism for Mexican immigration laws, despite the fact that Mexican immigration laws are more stringent. And he did this by asking us to imagine what would happen if the immigration laws in effect at the time in Mexico were proposed for the U.S.

Limbaugh never actually advocated having these laws -- laws that, with their prohibition on political demonstrations and other restrictions, could be bluntly summarized as telling immigrants to "Shut your mouth or get out". He merely asked his audience to think what kind of reception a "shut your mouth or get out" immigration policy would get if it were proposed for the U.S.

Limbaugh was speaking hypothetically, not actually endorsing such an attitude. By quoting him out of context, the Obama ad is distorting his position and unfairly demonizing him as being anti-immigrant.

Again, this amounts to a false accusation of bigotry on the part of Obama and his campaign.

(The Washington Post piece by Ed O'Keefe -- Wash Post: Obama Invokes Rush Limbaugh in New Spanish-Language Ads (September 17, 2008) -- also falsely makes the accusation, describing the Obama ad as trying to link "Sen. John McCain to anti-immigrant comments made by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh". As discussed above, Limbaugh's comments weren't anti-immigrant.)

Guilt by Association?

There is another element to Obama's ad that is questionable: its reference to Limbaugh (and others) as being a "friend" of McCain.

There are several problems with this assertion.

First, it's not clear in what sense -- if any -- Limbaugh and McCain could correctly be called friends. They're both Republicans, and agree on some political issues, such as the war in Iraq. But their acrimonious disagreement on various other political issues -- such as illegal immigration -- is well-known, and they are not friends in the sense of having friendly relations with one another.

So, if the Obama campaign is going to call Limbaugh and McCain "friends", then it needs to spell out precisely what is meant by this ambiguous term. Otherwise, how can we tell whether or not the assertion is true?

Second, supposing that Limbaugh and McCain ARE friends, why should that make us think less of McCain (as is the clear implication of Obama's ad)? Is this an attempt to assign guilt by association? Guilt by association is not a straightforward business: just because person A is friends with person B and person B did something bad, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should also think badly of person A.

Lastly, the radio version of Obama's ad says this:

Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim.

This is yet another accusation referencing "friends" of McCain. This time, Obama's ad accuses these "friends" of saying that immigrants (or, perhaps, Central and South American, or Spanish-speaking immigrants?) come here in order "to commit crimes or drain the system".

But Obama provides no evidence of who it is who has said this. The ad cites no quotes and no names (though, of course, even when they named Limbaugh and gave quotes from him, they STILL failed to prove their case).

The burden of proof is on Obama and his campaign to prove that these things have been said (and said by "friends" of McCain, and to THEN explain why this should make us think less of McCain). Without such proof, it is evidence of yet another false accusation of bigotry.

Conclusion

So, to round up, McCain ran an ad making an unsubstantiated accusation that Obama and Democrats killed an immigration reform bill.

Obama responded with an ad that made several accusations of his own:

that McCain lied;
that Republican policies were failed policies;
that Limbaugh (and others) made bigoted, anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican statements; and,
that McCain's friendship with Limbaugh (and others) should make us think worse of him.

And these accusations of Obama's wound up being unsubstantiated or even false.

-- Civ.

Analysis: McCain's "Education" Ad Claims Obama Supported Sex Education for Kindergarteners

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:28:00 +0000

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign released an ad on September 7, 2008, with this content:

NARRATOR: Education Week says Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education,
TEXT: Education Week: "Hasn't made a significant mark on education." 3/7/07
NARRATOR: That he's elusive on accountability,
TEXT: The Washington Post: "Elusive" 7/7/08
NARRATOR: A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.
TEXT: Chicago Tribune: "Staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." 7/20/08
NARRATOR: Obama's one accomplishment?
TEXT: Obama's one accomplishment?
NARRATOR: Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners.
TEXT: Illinois Senate Health and Human Servicess Committee: "Comprehensive sex education" 5.8.99, passed 3/6/03
NARRATOR: Learning about sex before learning to read?
TEXT: Learning about sex before learning to read?
NARRATOR: Barack Obama: wrong on education,
TEXT: Wrong on education
NARRATOR: Wrong for your family.
TEXT: Wrong for your family
MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
TEXT: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain
* [YouTube: Barack Obama Sex Ed for Kindergarten 5 year olds.]

There are a variety of claims being made in this ad, but it is the last one -- that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) supported teaching "comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners" -- is the most serious.

First, though, let's address the other claims being made, which were made by various periodicals, but which the McCain campaign has chosen to publicize (and, as such, implicitly endorse):

Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education": Since it's arguable what amounts to a "significant mark", it's arguable whether or not this is true. But, if it is, is that such a bad thing? Many politicians haven't made a "significant mark" on lots of issues, does that seriously count against electing them?
Obama is "elusive" on education issues: Again, it's not clear what counts as "elusive", so it's not clear whether this is true.
Obama is a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly": Perhaps this is true, but we're given no reason to think that defending the "public school monopoly" is a bad thing. Maybe it is, but the ad only assumes this point, it doesn't offer -- or even point us toward -- any argument for it.

Beyond these issues, there is also the matter of whether these sources -- Education Week, The Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune -- are being accurately quoted by the McCain campaign.

Was the Sex-Ed Bill Obama's "One Accomplishment" in Education?

On the sex education legislation, the McCain ad calls it Obama's "one accomplishment". But this claim is problematic on a variety of fronts.

First, the bill never became law, so can it be called an accomplishment at all?

Second, while Obama did vote for the bill, he was not a sponsor of it. So, if it HAD passed, would it be correct to call the bill HIS accomplishment, rather than the accomplishment of those who DID sponsor it?

Finally, Obama has -- in the Illinois State Senate and in the U.S. Senate -- sponsored other education legislation. Shouldn't these other pieces of legislation be considered accomplishments, as well? As such, isn't the "one accomplishment" assertion false?

Did Obama Support Inappropriate Sex Education for Kindergarteners?

But the most serious claim made by the McCain ad is that the legislation that Obama supported would have allowed inappropriate sex education for kindergarteners.

But is this true?

The answer to that question hinges, in part, on what counts as appropriate sex education, a matter of controversy that I won't go into here.

However, the answer also hinges on the content of the bill (you can see the text of the legislation here: Illinois General Assembly: Full Text of SB0099).

The bill says the following:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

This pronouncement is ambiguous. As a student, would the "comprehensive sex education" I receive occur over the course grades K through 12 (that is, piece by piece over 13 years), or would it occur in just one year (that is, once in kindergarten, then again in first grade, then AGAIN in second grade, and so on)?

The bill, in this respect, is poorly worded, since it seems open to the interpretation that a student could receive a comprehensive sex education in just one year (including instruction on HIV and other STDs, etc.), and at an age of as young as five years old (and then again at six years old, and AGAIN at seven, and so on).

However, the bill also says:

All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

And:

All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

This fits in more with the idea that students would receive a comprehensive sex education over the course of 13 years -- starting at age five and ending at age 18 -- rather than all in one year while they're still learning to read.

Of course, the "age appropriate" constraint is not clearly spelled out, but neither is it absent altogether. The bill could certainly do to be clearer about what, exactly, is going to be taught to five-year-olds regarding sex education (it was suggested that kindergarteners would be taught about "inappropriate touching" so that they would not fall prey to child molesters [FactCheck.org: Off Base on Sex Ed (September 10, 2008)]).

But it's far from clear that this is opening the door -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to teaching five-year-old children about sex, HIV, condoms and so forth. McCain is baselessly endorsing the worst interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous bill.

It is false for the McCain campaign to assert that the bill would definitely have had these consequences, let alone to imply that this was an accomplishment that Obama sought to bring about.

-- Civ.

Gaffes

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Gaffes are absurd, nonsensical, false or otherwise obviously out-of-bounds statements that people make. Politicians and pundits make them, of course, but they are often put to misuse in the political arena.

This is done by paying selective attention to them. That is, you pardon and excuse (or even ignore) the ridiculous gaffes made by yourself and your allies, while excoriating your opponents for theirs. (This is a common bias: people tend to focus on the flaws and mistakes of those they hate, while casting a blind eye to the flaws and mistakes on their own side.)

Under the "Examples and Analysis" section below, you will find a list of gaffes made by different people of different political persuasions. Consider how these gaffes were put to use, how they were treated by different people. Some people pointed to them as evidence of extreme stupidity, ignorance, obtuseness, etc., while others excused them as merely a "slip-up" or ignored them altogether.

EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

"When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it." Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."
-- Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), October 2, 2008 [CDP: Analysis: October 2nd Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in Missouri (October 8, 2008)].
Comment: Biden is making (as well as attributing to Barack Obama) a bluntly false statement about the history of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the U.S. and France. Hezbollah has never been "kicked out" of Lebanon: certainly not in the time since Barack Obama became a senator, and certainly not by the U.S. or France. Many of the assertions made in debates are dubious, but this is a falsehood that is not even arguable. Yet host and moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS never challenged Biden on this, nor did Biden's debate opponent, vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).

***

"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about and communicates to people, 'If you listen to me and follow what I'm suggesting we can fix this'. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened'".
-- Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), September 22, 2008 [CBS News: Behind The Scenes With Joe Biden (September 22, 2008); YouTube: Biden: FDR Led When Market Crashed; ABC News: In Gaffe, Biden Says FDR Led When Market Crashed (September 23, 2008)].
Comment: Biden is just wrong about history, here. F.D.R. -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- was not president until March 4, 1933, years after the Wall Street Crash (October 24, 1929) that Biden is referring to. And F.D.R.'s fireside chats were broadcast via radio, not television. Television broadcasts did not become widely available until the 1940s and 1950s. CBS anchor Katie Couric, who was interviewing Biden when he made this statement, didn't pick up on these gaffes, either. The gaffe is made funnier by Biden's insistence that leaders should know what they're talking about.

***

"It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid that it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border."
-- Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, June 21, 2008 [ABC News: McCain Challenges Obama to See Success of Surge in Iraq (July 21, 2008); YouTube: McCain Thinks Iraq Borders Pakistan].
Comment: Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border, Iran sits between them. At the time, McCain was talking about Afghanistan, which DOES share a border with Pakistan. During a campaign that involved discussion of U.S. military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain clearly just said "Iraq" when he meant to say "Afghanistan". ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer -- who was interviewing McCain when he made this gaffe -- did not pick up on the error, either.

***

"I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go."
-- Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) [Reuters: To Obama, it seems like there are more than 50 states (May 9, 2008); YouTube: Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States].
Comment: There are, of course, only 50 states, not 57 (or, if you count the one Obama says he still has left to visit, 58). Obama was probably trying to decide between saying how close he's gotten to visiting all 50 states and stating the number of the continental states (of which there are 48) he's visited, and combined the two to get "57".

***

"When my sister and I were growing up, there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."
-- Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore (D-TN), August 12, 2000 [NY Times: THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE VICE PRESIDENT; Gore Confronted by a New Issue: Playboy (August 12, 2000)].
Comment: Gore was probably trying to be emphatic about how little doubt he and his sister had that men and women were equal, but instead wound up putting the emphasis in the wrong place. "More so than equal"? What does that even mean? You can't make the relationship of equality stronger.

***

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family".
-- Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX), January 27, 2000.
Comment: Bush here is probably trying to choose between saying, "I know how hard it is for you to put food on the table", and "I know how hard it is for you to get food for your family", and instead winds up combining the two.

***

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
-- Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX), January 11, 2000.
Comment: This ungrammatical utterance is particularly funny because of its reference to education.

-- Civ.

Analysis: McCain's "Celeb" Ad Derides Obama's Celebrity

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:58:00 +0000

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign released an ad on July 30, 2008, with this content:

NARRATOR: He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But is he ready to lead?
TEXT: Obama: is he ready to lead?
NARRATOR: With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says "no" to offshore drilling,
TEXT: Obama: no offshore drilling
NARRATOR: and says he'll raise taxes on electricity?
TEXT: Obama: new taxes
NARRATOR: Higher taxes,
TEXT: higher taxes
NARRATOR: more foreign oil:
TEXT: more foreign oil
NARRATOR: that's the real Obama.
TEXT: McCain
MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
TEXT: Paid for by John McCain 2008. Approved by John McCain.
* [YouTube: Celeb (July 30, 2008)]

Along with the above content, the ad displays video of Sen. Barack Obama as well as of celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and audio of crowds cheering Obama's name.

This ad focuses on Obama's celebrity, but without making a clear point about it. Clearly, the ad is not praising Obama for his celebrity, and is instead being dismissive of it. But what is the basis for this position?

If the ad is making the argument that you shouldn't go along with someone simply because they are famous, that's fine. In fact, it's a good point.

But we shouldn't be AGAINST someone simply because they're famous, either. The argument that "so-and-so is popular, therefore his ideas are wrong" is nothing more than ad hominem reasoning.

Which brings us to the choice of celebrities that appear alongside Obama in the ad: Hilton and Spears, who are (popularly, at least) regarded as being vapid celebrities, the implication being that Obama's celebrity is similarly unfounded.

But this is an invalid form of argument. You can't force the conclusion that Obama's celebrity is vapid simply by putting his photo up alongside Spears and Hilton any more than you can force us to conclude that he's a great, admirable leader simply by putting his photo up alongside Winston Churchill, Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela.

If the McCain campaign (or anyone else) wants to argue that Obama's celebrity is vapid or baseless, fine. But you have to provide reasons for that conclusion. It's not enough to simply point out that SOME celebrities (i.e., Spears and Hilton) are superficial in order to argue that Obama's celebrity is superficial. Just like it wouldn't be enough to point out that SOME celebrities (i.e., Churchill, Mother Teresa, and Mandela) are deserving of admiration in order to argue that Obama is a celebrity who deserves admiration.

So, this ad by the McCain campaign lacked substance in this respect. They would have done better to focus instead on the merits of Obama's position on taxes and drilling for oil, rather than making a spurious argument about his celebrity.

Was the Ad Racist?

Many people criticized the "Celeb" ad for appealing to racism.

For instance:

"The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women."
* [The NY Times Editorial Board: Say What? John McCain, Barack Obama, and the "Race Card" (July 31, 2008)]

And, more explicitly:

"a political dog whistle sends a message that only a particular constituency will hear (or intuitively understand). [President George W.] Bush has, care of his speechwriters, been dog whistling to his evangelicals for the past eight years; often, when we heathens think he sounds most nonsensical, it's because he's sending a coded message to his Jesus peeps. Often, dog whistles are merely a covert shout-out to a particular constituency ... to quietly speak to subconscious (or conscious) biases and evoke a particular visceral reaction. ... Obama, dog whistles the ad, hitting old racists in the sweet spot, could fuck these white girls ... and we don't want that, now, do we?"
* [Melissa McEwan, UK Guardian: McCain blows the dog whistle (August 1, 2008)]

Any accusation of racist behavior should be supported by evidence, not supposition. The burden of proof should be on the accuser to prove the claim, not on the accused to disprove it. And proving racism has to amount to more than pointing to someone's behavior and positing racism as a possible explanation (since just about anything is possible). There must be evidence that demonstrates that racism is a likely -- or the best -- explanation.

There doesn't seem to be any such evidence clinching that case, here. The claim that "code words" are being used to send "coded messages" is a frequent accusation in politics, but one that is seldom defended in any substantive way. A "code" for anything can be found anywhere if you're willing to entertain different interpretations of a speech. But that's different from proving that the speechwriter was actively and intentionally using a code to communicate to people.

Absent more convincing evidence, those who are accusing the McCain campaign of appealing to racism in their "Celeb" ad are making an unfounded accusation of racism.

-- Civ.

Who Will Win? The Debate is Already Lost ...

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:09:00 +0000

At this point, most people are waiting to learn the outcome the 2008 presidential election.

But, in one respect, we can already say that the electoral campaign has been a failure.

The point of elections isn't only to select a candidate for office. Participating in the democratic process -- engaging in elections and debates about candidates and policies -- should make us better people. It should make us wiser and increase our understanding of moral and political issues. At the very least, it shouldn't make us worse.

By this measure, the election of 2008 has certainly failed.

It has been riddled with instances of name-calling, demonizing, misrepresentation, exaggeration, ad hominem reasoning and more.

(Many of these instances have been cataloged by The Civil Debate Page, though many more are still waiting to be addressed.)

Generally, each side has used underhanded tactics in order to make us think the worst of their opponent. Frequently, they've tried to convince us that their own side is trying to do what's right and good, while the other side is selfish or unmoved by moral considerations.

For instance, those who have suggested that we should try to help people in need have been tarred as "socialists" or "redistributors" [AFP: McCain reignites Obama 'socialist' claim over 2001 interview (October 27, 2008)]. Meanwhile, those who have suggested that we should try to be self-sufficient and reward work and productivity have been ridiculed for supporting "Social Darwinism" [AP: Obama Accuses Bush of 'Social Darwinism' (March 27, 2007)]

Astonishingly, after expressing all this contempt for their opponents, each side insists that they want to unify the country, even though their behavior demonstrates that they have neither the will nor the knowledge requisite to do so.

Regardless of who wins or loses -- John McCain or Barack Obama -- what happens next is predictable.

The winning side will act as if they and their ideas have been overwhelmingly embraced by the nation, even though -- at best -- only a third of the country's residents will have voted for them (and many of those will have done so with reservations).

Each side will give a self-servingly false account of their fate (by way of the "only my opponent" caricature):

The winning side will say that they won by running a clean campaign (which is false), while insisting that their opponents did not behave virtuously (which is true), resulting in their loss.

The losing side will say that they behaved virtuously during the campaign (also false), while insisting that the winning side played dirty (true), resulting in their loss.

The winner will make a dramatic appeal, "reaching across the aisle" to the loser in order to unite the country. Given past behavior, the loser will (correctly) judge this to be insincere, and turn it down. The winners will accuse them of being stubborn, ignorant and/or deliberately subversive, and will call them sore losers.

Resentment will accrue on both sides, which will degenerate into more name-calling, misrepresentation, etc., and four years from now we'll hold another election so we can do it all over again.

Given this, does it matter who wins the election? Both sides will have succeeded mostly in making their supporters think the worst of their opponents, thereby encouraging the worst in us, inciting our hatreds and deluding us into thinking that our political adversaries are evil, selfish, and stupid.

(You can see it already in the desperate, fearful hatred people express, particularly toward Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, and Sarah Palin.)

They'll have succeeded in making us worse people in the name of improving government.

Is this sort of politics any place for good people?

"Even My Opponents Agree"

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:37:00 +0000

Sometimes politicians and pundits argue that the fact that their opponents AGREE with them on a particular topic shows that they are CORRECT about it.

For instance, they'll advocate one of their policies by saying:

Even my opponent supports my position on this issue.

The implicit argument is that -- since political opponents usually disagree on things -- when they reach consensus and agree on some position, that position must be correct.

But this is flawed reasoning. Is it impossible that two political opponents could both be wrong at the same time? What's preventing that? Nothing.

Just because your opponent supports the same position you do doesn't somehow give that position extra credibility.

Bipartisanship is often praised using the same flawed reasoning: if opposing parties are agreeing on something, they MUST be right about it.

This is an instance of a particular kind of fallacious reasoning, the appeal to authority (in Latin, this fallacy is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam).

"Only My Opponent Does It" Caricature

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:18:00 +0000

Politicians and pundits often caricature and distort their opponents, and there is a certain kind of distortion that stands out: the "only my opponent does it" caricature.

This caricature involves falsely claiming that only your opponent violates the norms of civilized debate. Such claims are almost always false, because -- unfortunately -- usually all sides have given up on civil discourse.

The "only my opponent" caricature is usually stated something like this:

We are setting a higher standard of debate, while our opponents are engaging in negative politics and attacks.

The people who make such an assertion rarely specify what they mean by the "higher standard" that they claim they are living up to. Nor do they specify what they mean by the "negative politics" that they claim their opponents are living down to. As such, it's difficult to evaluate whether their assertion is true.

But it's usually the case that both sides in U.S. politics -- meaning Democrats and Republicans, liberals/progressives and conservatives -- are engaging in such things as name-calling, misrepresentation, exaggeration and ad hominem reasoning. And all these behaviors are failures to live up to the standard of civil debate.

Sometimes people make a weaker claim along the same lines:

Both sides engage in unfair tactics, but the OTHER side does it more often.

But is even this weaker claim true? What is the evidence that backs it up? To defend this claim, you'd have to provide an actual count of incidents over a given period of time. That is, you'd need to put together a rigorous study, not just an impression of what it "seems like" from your memory.

It's almost never the case that only one side is violating the norms of civil debate. Statements like, "name-calling is wrong, but only my opponent does it", "it's wrong to demonize your opponents, but only my opponents do it", or even "we don't do it as much as they do" are almost always false.

EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

"...given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan ... history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals."
-- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in "The Edwards Effect", February 1, 2008.
Comment: This is a caricature on two counts. First, Krugman's allegation of "economic elitism" caricatures Republican economic policies as being concerned only with the rich. Second, Krugman is falsely implying that it is only Republicans that are adept at demonizing opponents. The wealth of examples on this web site demonstrates otherwise.

***

Politicians "don't always say what they mean, or mean what they say...That is what this debate in this party is all about."
-- Barack Obama, January 23, 2008.
Comment: This is a caricature. Yes, it's true that politicians often say one thing and then do another. But Obama is implying that he's not that sort of politician whereas his opponents -- notably, Hillary Clinton -- are. But that's false. January 2007 has seen both the Clinton and Obama campaigns stoop to many of the same unfair tactics, despite Obama's call for a new and higher standard of political conduct.

***

"I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."
-- Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), November 15, 2007.
Comment: This is an interesting example, because Clinton is caricaturing her own party, the Democrats, by implying that Democrats typically don't resort to unfair political tactics or uncivil debate (in contrast to Republicans). This is false: both parties routinely engage in uncivil debate.

Analysis: October 15th Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama in New York

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:19:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of the presidential debate [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, October 15, 2008] between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) at Hofstra University, hosted and moderated by by Bob Schieffer of CBS:

SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things. Senator Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs. I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?

Comment: McCain doesn't answer this question. He never makes any clear attempt to compare his own plan to Obama's. He only discusses the details of his own plan.

***

MCCAIN: You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around. The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around.

Comment: McCain is referring to a conversation Obama had with Ohio resident Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on October 11, 2008, regarding how Obama's tax plan would affect Wurzelbacher [YouTube: 'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate; LiveLeak: Complete 'Joe the Plumber' conversation without Fox News commentary]. In that conversation, Obama defended his plan to raise federal income taxes on those with incomes above $250,000 in order to pay for the lowering of taxes on those with lower incomes, saying:

I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

McCain doesn't spell out what he means when he describes Obama's tax policy as "class warfare", so it's difficult to evaluate his assertion. It's not clear whether McCain is caricaturing Obama's policy or exaggerating its consequences or engaging in name-calling or class-based identity politics, but the allusion to warfare is inappropriate.

There is a legitimate point of debate, here, regarding tax policy: should tax policy be more responsive to considerations of need -- that is, should tax rates be based on how much money people need to keep for themselves or receive from the government -- or should tax policy be more responsive to considerations of merit -- that is, should tax rates be based on how much people have worked, produced, and earned?

Obama and other Democrats often want to adjust taxes and spending programs on the basis of need, saying that more money or aid should be given to the poor, who are in need. This money and aid, they say, should come from the wealthy, who -- being rich -- have money and resources to spare.

McCain and other Republicans often want to adjust taxes and spending programs on the basis of merit, saying that taxes should be lowered so that people can keep more of the money they have earned by working. They also advocate that people work in order to gain more income, rather than receiving aid from the government for free.

In practice, our tax and spending policies are responsive to both need and merit to varying degrees. But there is an ongoing debate about whether (and in what way) they should be more responsive to need, or more responsive to merit. In other words, there is an ongoing debate as to whether need or merit should win out in thousands (or even millions) of aspects of our tax and spending policies.

McCain's "class warfare" accusation does nothing to help people understand this moral conflict in general, or to understand McCain's own stance on it and his appeal to merit. It only serves to make people think the worst about his opponents, to make them think that his opponents are inciting warfare between the classes.

(Obama does much the same thing with his frequent description of Republican tax and spending policies as "Social Darwinism" [AP: Obama Accuses Bush of 'Social Darwinism' (March 27, 2007); AFL-CIO National Convention (July 25, 2005); and Commencement Address: Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois (June 4, 2005). As with McCain, Obama's "Social Darwinism" accusation does nothing to help people understand this moral conflict in general, or to understand Obama's own stance on it and his appeal to need. It only serves to make people think the worst about his opponents, to make them think that his opponents are encouraging everyone to leave the needy for dead.)

***

OBAMA: Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.

Comment: Obama is using offering up a "silver bullet" caricature of McCain's position on spending. Yes, McCain has opposed earmarks, but he has never said that simply eliminating earmarks will be enough to reform the federal budget. Obama is distorting McCain's position by implying that McCain believes that eliminating earmarks is a "silver bullet" that will fix the budget.

***

MCCAIN: I have fought against spending. I have fought against special interests. I have fought for reform. You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.

Comment: In praising himself for fighting them, McCain is deriding special interests. But why are they bad? What's wrong with special interests? McCain needs to spell this out.

Similarly, McCain is criticizing Obama for not showing independence from his party, the Democrats. (McCain prides himself in occasionally standing against his own party, the Republicans.) But what is the value of being independent of your own party, of being a "maverick"? It's only good to be independent of your party when your party is wrong. If your party is right, then you should stick with it; if your party is wrong, you shouldn't. Before he can criticize Obama for not going against the Democrats, McCain must identify what issue Democrats are wrong on that it would make it worthwhile to be independent of them.

An additional point: given that being a maverick is only a good thing if you're supporting a worthy cause, those who oppose their party on a regular basis should ask themselves if they're in the right party to begin with.

That is, if you're frequently justified in being a maverick and in being independent of your party, doesn't that mean that your party is frequently wrong?

***

OBAMA: I've got a history of reaching across the aisle.

Comment: The same principles apply here as to McCain's insistence that he is a maverick. Being bipartisan is -- in and of itself -- no more good or bad than being a maverick. If being bipartisan achieves something good, that's good. If it doesn't, then that's not good. Obama must identify what issue Democrats and Republicans are right about that it would make it worthwhile to be bipartisan.

***

OBAMA: Now with respect to a couple of things Senator McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making. Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.

Comment: So, McCain has criticized Obama for voting for a tax increase, and Obama is trying to refute the criticism. And he is doing it by arguing that even some of his opponents -- FOX News, in this case -- dismiss the criticism McCain is making.

In other words, Obama is committing the "even my opponents agree" fallacy. Just because your opponent supports the same position you do doesn't somehow give that position extra credibility. Or -- to apply the principle to this particular circumstance -- just because FOX News agrees with Obama on a position doesn't make that position more believable.

To convince us that McCain's criticism is baseless, Obama needs to do more than just say that one of his opponents also believes that it's baseless. He needs to go into the substance of the criticism itself. He needs to give evidence that the claim is false, which he doesn't do.

***

OBAMA: Now, you've shown independence -- commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked. And I think the American people understand it hasn't worked. We need to move in a new direction.

Comment: There's a few things going on, here.

First, Obama is praising McCain for being independent of his party (that is, for being a maverick). However, (like McCain) he fails to explain why being a maverick is good.

Second, as he did in the September 26th debate and the October 7th debate, Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against President George W. Bush and McCain (and, yet again, against Republicans more generally), but without going into the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation.

Lastly, Obama is making a claim on behalf of the American people, but without providing any evidence. He says the American people believe Bush's policies have failed: does that mean ALL the American people believe this, just SOME, or a MAJORITY? He doesn't specify which. If he is saying that all or the majority of the American people believe this, he needs to provide evidence.

***

MCCAIN: But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it. Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate. ... Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to the leadership of your party isn't very convincing.

Comment: Again, McCain praises his own independence from the Republican Party while deriding Obama for not being independent enough from the Democratic Party. But, once more, he doesn't explain why independence and being a maverick is necessarily a good thing.

***

SCHIEFFER: Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Senator McCain. Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists." Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

MCCAIN: ... I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different. And the fact is, it's gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable. One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate. So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.

OBAMA: ... Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that, if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people -- Bob, your network just did a poll, showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Senator McCain is running a negative campaign versus one-third of mine. And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.

Comment: McCain expresses the wish that the electoral debate had been conducted according to a higher standard on both sides, but he doesn't give a clear idea of what standard he is espousing, or why it is superior.

McCain also doesn't specify how his own campaign has failed to live up to that standard. But he DOES note a failure on the side of his opponent: a statement made October 11, 2008, by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA):

"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."
* Rep. John Lewis Responds to Increasing Hostility of McCain-Palin Campaign (October 11, 2008)
* AP: Congressman says McCain 'sowing seeds of hatred' (October 11, 2008)
* CNN: Rep. Lewis clarifies controversial remarks about McCain, Palin (October 12, 2008)

McCain is right to criticize Lewis for his remarks, and he is right to insist that it is the sort of thing that everyone -- Lewis' opponents and allies, including Obama -- should condemn. Lewis' accusation -- that McCain and his running mate -- Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) -- are inciting violence on a par with the incitements of Wallace -- is baseless. Both sides have sought to encourage us to believe the worst about their opponents.

McCain goes on to insist that he has "repudiated" every "out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican". This would be laudable if it were true, but it isn't true. During both the Republican primary and the general election, Republicans have made several unfair remarks about Democrats, and McCain hasn't even come close to repudiating all of them. In fact, many of the unfair remarks about Democrats have been made by McCain himself, and he has neither repudiated nor disowned them. So, while McCain is correct that setting a higher standard of political debate involves (among other things) repudiating the misbehavior of your allies as well as your opponents, he's wrong when he says that he's lived up to that standard.

After pledging to run an "honest campaign", McCain then goes on to accuse Obama of paying for political ads that engage in "negative politics". (McCain admits that he's doing the same thing, but insists that Obama is spending MORE money doing so.) But he doesn't specify precisely what is negative about Obama's ads (or about his own, for that matter). In the same way that he doesn't spell out what counts as setting a higher standard of debate, he also doesn't spell out what counts as going "negative".

For his part, Obama claims that McCain is going negative, but he ALSO doesn't specify what standard of "negative politics" he is employing.

Obama cites an opinion poll [NY Times: Poll Says McCain Is Hurting His Bid by Using Attacks (October 14, 2008); PDF of results] that says twice as many people believe McCain is running a negative campaign as believe that Obama is. But, as is so often the problem with opinion polls, the respondents aren't asked to justify their opinion, only to report it.

In what sense do the poll's respondents believe that McCain is "attacking" Obama? How do they justify the belief that those attacks are unfair, rather than being legitimate criticism? The poll questions -- and, therefore, the respondents -- don't go into any of those details.

So the poll Obama cites merely reports opinions without investigating how or whether those opinions are justified. As such, Obama can't use the poll to support the assertion that McCain is "going negative".

***

OBAMA: But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we're not talking about issues.

Comment: Obama is referring to the accusation -- made by Palin -- that he was "palling around with terrorists" by associating with Bill Ayers. (Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group active in the 1970s.) [CS Monitor: Palin: Obama “palling around with terrorists” (October 5, 2008); YouTube: Palin accuses Obama of "Palling Around With Terrorist"]

I take it that, with this statement, Obama is denying that there is any truth to the claim that he is friendly with terrorists. Unfortunately, his statement -- taken literally -- doesn't express that point.

Taken literally, it sounds like he's saying that whether a presidential candidate is friendly with terrorists is not a legitimate issue, which is, of course, false. If a presidential candidate were on friendly terms with a terrorist, most voters would justifiably want to take that into account.

This error, though, can be overlooked by giving Obama's statement a charitable interpretation, and assuming that he simply chose the wrong words to express himself.

***

MCCAIN: The point is that I have repudiated every time someone's been out of line, whether they've been part of my campaign or not, and I will continue to do that.

Comment: As I noted above, this is false. It's an admirable standard to uphold, but McCain has not lived up to it, despite saying that he has.

He himself has made several "out of line" comments: for instance, his July 22, 2008, assertion that "Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign" [The Civil Debate Page: McCain Says Obama Would "Rather Lose a War in Order To Win a Political Campaign"].

And he put up an inadequate protest when a woman attending one of his own campaign events on November 12, 2007, referred to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "the bitch". [The Civil Debate Page: 2007; YouTube: "How Do We Beat the Bitch" Extended Version; NY Times: Pointed Question Puts McCain in a Tight Spot (November 14, 2007)]

Again, while it's nice when people support this higher standard in the abstract, it would be better if they lived up to it in actual circumstances. McCain hasn't.

***

OBAMA: What I think is most important is that we recognize that to solve the key problems that we're facing, if we're going to solve two wars, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, if we can -- if we're going to focus on lifting wages that have declined over the last eight years and create jobs here in America, then Democrats, independents and Republicans, we're going to have to be able to work together. And what is important is making sure that we disagree without being disagreeable. And it means that we can have tough, vigorous debates around issues. What we can't do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad people. And that has been a culture in Washington that has been taking place for too long.

Comment: Obama makes a call to unify the country and be bipartisan, as well as to set a higher standard of political debate.

But he doesn't specify what kind of unity is achievable or desirable, as is typical of politicians who call for the country to be united.

Moreover, just like McCain, he supports setting a higher standard of debate in the abstract but has failed to live up to it in practice. For instance, he has repeatedly demonized and caricatured his opponents as "Social Darwinists".

And, like McCain, he has stood silent as his allies have been "disagreeable".

***

SCHIEFFER: So I'll begin by asking both of you this question, and I'll ask you to answer first, Senator Obama. Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?

Comment: Neither candidate actually compares the vice presidential nominees -- Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Palin -- as Schieffer's question demands. Instead, McCain and Obama just praise their own running mates, respectively, which is not sufficient in order to judge which running mate is better.

In other words, this is yet another question that neither candidate answers.

***

OBAMA: After eight years of failed policies, he and I both agree that what we're going to have to do is to reprioritize.

Comment: Obama again makes the "failed policies" accusation against McCain and President Bush. But, again, Obama does not provide the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation.

***

SCHIEFFER: [Referring to McCain's running mate, Palin] Do you think she's qualified to be president?

OBAMA: You know, I think it's -- that's going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she's a capable politician who has, I think, excited the -- a base in the Republican Party.

Comment: Instead of answering the question, Obama employs the "not my decision" evasion.

To illustrate how Obama is avoiding the question, consider this: it's up to the American people to decide whether Obama or McCain's policies on Iraq, health care, taxes and everything else is better. Does that mean Obama can't (or won't) give his OWN opinion on any of that?

Of course not. Obama regularly gives his opinion on matters that the American people ultimately decide on, so there's no reason he can't also give his opinion on whether Palin is qualified to be president.

***

SCHIEFFER: Do you think Senator Biden is qualified?

MCCAIN: I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects.

Comment: It's not clear that McCain answers Schieffer's question regarding whether Biden is qualified to be president. Is McCain saying that Biden IS qualified to be president, and that there are many reasons he is? Or is he saying that Biden is qualified in some respects to be president, but not in others, and so is therefore NOT qualified overall?

McCain's statement is ambiguous. Unfortunately, he didn't clarify it, nor did Schieffer or Obama ask him to do so.

***

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about energy and climate control. Every president since Nixon has said what both of you ... climate change, yes -- has said what both of you have said, and, that is, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. When Nixon said it, we imported from 17 to 34 percent of our foreign oil. Now, we're importing more than 60 percent. Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?

Comment: Neither McCain nor Obama answers Sshieffer's question, which concerned how much oil imports could be reduced in ONE TERM (in other words, in four years).

McCain offers suggestions for ways to reduce oil imports, but some of them (for instance, building 45 nuclear plants) can't feasibly be accomplished in four years. And Obama chose to speak about reductions over a 10-year period.

So, both candidates evaded the question. And Schieffer didn't call them on it.

***

OBAMA: I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement.

Comment: This is a caricature. If Obama wants to say that Bush and McCain have supported trade deals that should not have been supported, then he should say so and defend his assertion. But to say that Bush and McCain have the attitude that "any trade agreement is a good trade agreement" is false. It is a distortion which serves to deride Bush and McCain.

***

MCCAIN: So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid. Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

Comment: First, McCain derides Obama as being ignorant when he says the trade agreement is a "no-brainer". Contrary to how McCain describes it, the right judgment on the trade deal ISN'T obvious.

As with most political issues, there are several different moral considerations that are in competition with one another. In this case, there are the potential economic benefits and harms that could result to the U.S. and Colombia that are involved in any trade deal. In addition, there are issues of whether the Colombian government is doing enough to protect labor leaders from violence: if not, then there is the further question of whether a trade deal with Colombia would make us implicitly supportive and complicit in that failure. It is NOT obvious how all these considerations add up. Contrary to McCain's assertion, there is certainly room for reasonable disagreement.

Second, McCain's admonition to Obama to "travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better" seems like a fallacious argument.

Is McCain arguing that, because he's been to Colombia and Obama hasn't, therefore he is right about the trade deal with Colombia and Obama is wrong? If so, then he is making an argument from authority, which is flawed reasoning. After all, there are people who, like McCain, have been to Colombia, but who oppose the trade agreement. Since both sides can't be right, the argument that "whoever went to Colombia is right about the trade deal" is clearly fallacious.

If McCain isn't making that argument, however, then it's not clear what point he IS trying to make.

***

SCHIEFFER: All right, let's go to a new topic, health care. Given the current economic situation, would either of you now favor controlling health care costs over expanding health care coverage?

Comment: Neither McCain nor Obama clearly answers the question.

Obama says "we've got to do both", but doesn't say which he would give priority to, which is what the question asked.

While McCain says "it really is the cost, the escalating costs of health care that are inflicting such pain on working families and people across this country", he doesn't clearly state whether he would choose to control costs over expanding health care coverage.

***

OBAMA: Very briefly. You all just heard my plan. If you've got an employer-based health care plan, you keep it. Now, under Senator McCain's plan there is a strong risk that people would lose their employer-based health care. That's the choice you'll have is having your employer no longer provide you health care. And don't take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which generally doesn't support a lot of Democrats, said that this plan could lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system.

Comment: Again, Obama uses the "even my opponents agree" fallacy, this time in attempting to criticize McCain's health care plan. Just because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which often opposes Obama -- agrees with Obama on health care doesn't mean that Obama must be correct on health care. It's not as if it would be impossible for both Obama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to be wrong about something.

***

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?

Comment: McCain and Obama each talked about how they wouldn't impose a "litmus test", but neither of them clearly stated whether they would nominate someone who disagreed with them on Roe v. Wade.

***

OBAMA: And I also have to disagree on Senator McCain's record when it comes to college accessibility and affordability. Recently his key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along. I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future.

Comment: Obama objects to the McCain campaign calling college students "interest groups", which I take to mean the same as "special interests". Obama does nothing to explain, however, what an "interest group" is, why they are bad, and why college students shouldn't be considered to be one.

Obama himself -- along with lots of other politicians, including McCain -- frequently criticizes special interest groups, but without defining what they are or defending his negative opinion of them. Without this information, on what basis are we to agree with Obama (and the McCain campaign) that special interests are bad? And how are we to assess Obama's claim that college students AREN'T a special interest group?

***

MCCAIN: I have a record of reform, and taking on my party, the other party, the special interests, whether it be an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights, or trying to clean up the campaign finance system in -- in this country, or whether it be establishment of a 9/11 Commission, I have a long record of it.

Comment: McCain praises his own defiance of special interests, but without explaining why that's a good thing.

Also, McCain again touts his status as a maverick, but without explaining why THAT'S a good thing, either.

***

OBAMA: The policies of the last eight years and -- and Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And that's why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.

Comment: Again, Obama accuses McCain and Bush of "failed policies", but does nothing to substantiate the accusation.

"Americans Want..."

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:26:00 +0000

Politicians and pundits frequently make claims about what their constituents want. They say that "Americans want this" and "Americans want that", but without providing much substance to these assertions, or defending their importance.

Is It True?

The first thing to consider when someone announces that "Americans want X" is the truth of the claim. Do Americans really want it? What evidence is there for the truth of this assertion?

Part of the problem with evaluating the truth of the claim is in specifying what it means. Does the claim "Americans want X" mean that ALL Americans want X; SOME Americans want X; or that a MAJORITY of Americans want X?

Depending on which claim is meant, the assertion may or may not be true. If the claim is that ALL Americans want X, then just one dissenter is enough to prove the claim false. If the claim is that SOME Americans want X, then you only need one person in order to prove the claim true.

If the claim is that a MAJORITY of Americans want X, then it's tougher to prove (or disprove) the claim. Typically politicians try to support their claim by referring to a poll. Not all polls are accurate, however, so we should be wary of instantly taking any poll at face value.

Does It Matter?

Supposing that we've established that the claim "Americans want X" is true, the next thing to consider whether it matters.

If the claim is merely that SOME Americans want X, then this doesn't carry much weight. After all, this is compatible with there being SOME Americans -- maybe even a greater number -- who DON'T want X.

If the claim is that a MAJORITY of Americans want X, we still need to consider whether it matters.

This might sound odd: given our allegiance to democracy, we're inclined to bow to the will of the majority. But democracies all over the world -- the U.S. included -- take measures to ensure that the majority DOESN'T always get what it wants, and for good reason. In the U.S., the Constitution prohibits certain rights -- for instance, the right to freedom of speech -- from being violated regardless of what the majority votes for. And this is justified, because it's wrong to treat people immorally merely because a majority wants to do so: for instance, just because a majority wants slavery doesn't make slavery a good thing.

So, even if the majority of Americans REALLY DOES want something, it's fair to question whether they're right. The majority isn't necessarily always correct. To think that the majority must be correct is an example of flawed reasoning. In particular, it's a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people", or "appeal to the masses").

The final version of the "Americans want" claim -- that ALL Americans want something -- is, in the first place, likely to be false. But, even if it is true, it has the same problems as the argumentum ad populum "appeal to the masses".

Best Response

When you here someone make the claim that "Americans want" this or that, ask the following questions:

Which Americans are they referring to? All of them? A majority of them? Only some of them?
Once it's clear WHICH Americans are being referred to, what evidence is there for the truth of the claim?
Finally, why is it important that Americans want it? Is this a fallacious appeal to the masses? What are we supposed to conclude from the claim that "Americans want X"?

Demanding this sort of clarity will help to reduce confusion, flawed reasoning, and empty rhetoric.

"Can't Fix Your Own Mistakes" Fallacy

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:34:00 +0000

It's often argued that, if a person makes a mistake, that person can't be relied upon to fix or reverse that mistake.

For instance, we frequently hear politicians say something along the lines of, "They caused this problem, now they're expecting us to let them fix it! It's ridiculous!"

One problem with this kind of accusation is that it's often not clear who is "the cause" of a particular problem. Certainly, politicians often accuse one another of having caused a problem without offering much to justify that assertion.

But the other problem has to do with the implication that someone who's caused a problem is incapable of fixing it. After all, it's flawed to conclude that, because you caused or created a problem, you therefore can't be the one to solve it. The mere fact that you break something doesn't tell us anything about whether or not you can fix it.

Consider: Can a mechanic both break and then fix a car? Can they first make a mistake, resulting in the car being broken, and then realize their error and fix it, making the car operable? Of course that's possible. In fact, this is what often happens, with mechanics and all sorts of other occupations and activities.

(Similarly, the mere fact that you DIDN'T break something doesn't tell us anything about whether or not you CAN fix it, if someone else breaks it.)

That's not to say that we are ALWAYS able to fix our mistakes -- obviously, if I mistakenly kill someone, that's irreversible -- but many times we can. And, even in cases where we CAN'T reverse or fix our mistakes, we may still be in a position to learn from those mistakes and not repeat them in the future.

Simply pointing out that we've made a mistake doesn't disqualify us from fixing it. (If it did, it would have bad implications for forgiveness, since earning forgiveness often involves reversing -- or at least not repeating -- mistakes.) This implication might actually qualify as ad hominem reasoning.

So, the next time someone makes this implication about a certain problem, demand that they explain why the mess in question is one that can't be swept up by the person who made it.

EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

BROKAW: Sen. Obama, this is a question from you from Teresa Finch. Teresa?
FINCH: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?
-- Questioner Teresa Finch, at the October 7, 2008, presidential debate between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript], hosted and moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC.
Comment: If Finch is implying that, because the Democratic and Republican parties caused the economic crisis of 2008, they cannot fix it, then she is committing the "can't fix your own mistakes" fallacy.

In Defense of Undecided Voters

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:59:00 +0000

As the presidential election nears, more and more attention is being given to "undecided voters": people who intend to vote, but who have not decided WHO they are going to vote for (or, at least, who describe themselves as such to pollsters).

Along with this attention has come criticism from those who see no good reason for anyone to be undecided. The choice between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), it is argued, is so clear and the candidates are so different that it is hard to see how anyone could reasonably be undecided.

Talk show host Tavis Smiley made this point recently, expressing amazement at the indecision among voters:

I am always troubled at this point in the campaign when the choices are this stark, for me, at least. I'm always troubled by how anybody can truly be undecided at this point in the game. I can never for the life of me understand how people are undecided at this point in the game. So two questions to you, because you're much brighter than I am. Tell me, number one, how anybody is undecided at this point, number one, and what are they looking for to help them vote for or against the other guy?
* Tavis Smiley, October 7, 2008.

John Oliver on The Daily Show on October 7, 2008, used comedy to make a similar point, deriding undecided voters as "racist Democrats" or "stupid".

And talk radio host Rush Limbaugh gave his disparaging assessment of undecided voters earlier this year:

The theory is you got 80% Republican going to vote their guy or their girl, and the same number on the Democrat side, and in any given election you have 10, 15, 20% undecided. The Drive-Bys say, "Candidates need to focus on the undecided," which really makes us mad. Focus on us, swell our numbers, and wipe out both the Democrats and the undecideds, because who [are] the undecideds? A bunch of moderates who [don't] have the guts to make up their mind about anything until the majority is formed a couple days before the election! I don't like indecisive people on anything, do you? People that can't make a decision about something? "Yeah, let me get back to you on that," and then they forget to get back to you, and they put you in a bind because you've told whoever (sigh) And yet the undecideds think that they're smarter than everybody else in the room, that they're not "closed-minded" and "ideological." They are "open-minded" and they're "studying the issues," and again it's all a bunch of folderol and flummery.
* The Rush Limbaugh Show, February 15, 2008.

Undecided voters do not deserve this criticism, however, as there are several good reasons for people to be uncertain about who to vote for:

First, there is uncertainty about whose policies will work best. In part, this is because candidates don't always flesh out their policies much.

But, the real problem is that politicians and pundits tend to make it sound as if it's very easy to figure out what policies will work best. For instance, on government taxation and spending, those who favor Democrats make it sound like it's obvious that Democratic policies are best for the economy, and those who favor Republicans make it sound like it's obvious that Republican policies are best for the economy.

But it's not obvious. In fact, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the empirical world in general, on everything from economics and the military to energy and the environment. Coming up with effective policies on any of these fronts involves a great deal of empirical observation and study. In particular, having good policies in these and other areas depends on making accurate predictions about how people will behave. And that is far from being a straightforward or easy thing to do.

If politicians and pundits want to deny that there is this level of uncertainty, fine. But they can't simply wish it away, they have to banish it with detailed, well-reasoned arguments backing up the policies that they advocate with such certainty. Needless to say, this is something that they seldom do.

And, as often as they claim that their opponent's policies have failed, but they don't give THIS assertion adequate support, either.

Most of the attempts politicians and pundits make at advocating their own policies -- and excoriating the policies of their opponent -- are based on superficial correlations. They say that, because things went well for the country WHILE our side was in power, they went well BECAUSE our side was in power. And they say that, because things went badly for the country WHILE our opponents were in power, they went poorly BECAUSE our opponents were in power.

Of course, their judgments about what constitutes the country "doing well" or "doing poorly" are also inadequately detailed and defended. But, this aside, correlation does not imply causation. Rather than going into detail and demonstrating a robust causal connection, they mostly just note a correlation.

So, empirical uncertainty is one basis on which it is understandable that someone could be undecided. And the candidates seldom offer precise, well-reasoned defenses of their policies that will erase that uncertainty.

Second, there is uncertainty about what goals should take priority. It is often the case that people agree with a candidate on some issues but disagree with them on others.

For instance, suppose you are a voter who agrees with one of the two main candidates -- Obama or McCain -- on the Iraq war, but you disagree with them on taxes and fiscal policy. That is, you believe that one candidate's Iraq policy is better, but you believe that the other candidate's taxation, spending and fiscal policy is better. Who, then, should you vote for?

It's far from obvious what the answer is. And that's because arriving at an answer will involve making even further judgments about empirical matters -- that is, which issues, Iraq or the budget, will have a bigger effect on the country's future -- as well as making judgments about what moral considerations should take priority over what OTHER moral considerations. And setting moral priorities -- for example, should merit outweigh need, or vice versa? -- is no easy thing to do.

Considering that there is no shortage of issues that voters consider to be important -- abortion, illegal immigration, global warming and climate change, energy policy, etc. -- it is hardly surprising that people should be undecided when they prefer one candidate's stance on one of these issues but another candidate's stance on a different issue.

Third, there are uncertainties about the character and temperament of the candidates. Partly this is a matter of deciding how important character is in politics. This topic, on its own, has plenty of room for reasonable disagreement.

But it is also a matter of knowing whether a candidate will do what they say they will do, and how they will react under pressure to unexpected events, and whether they can adapt to unforeseen challenges. And these kinds of judgments are difficult to make.

In fact, these sorts of judgments are akin to the decision businesses must make whenever they hire a new employee, or that people must make when they decide whether or not to marry someone. Why wouldn't the same kind of indecision arise when choosing a president?

Lastly, there are uncertainties about whether we should limit our choice down to two people. Does it really make sense to confine the question to, "Should you vote for Obama or McCain? The Democrat or the Republican?"? After all, they aren't the only ones running, there are third parties. And there is always the option of NOT voting (that is, not voting at all, or voting for members of Congress but not for a presidential candidate).

Voting for a third party is often dismissed and derided -- particularly by supporters of the two main parties, Republicans and Democrats -- but why? If you're not satisfied with either of the two main candidates, why should you vote for one on the basis of which of them is the "lesser of two evils"?

For one thing, it's not necessarily going to be obvious which of the two IS the lesser of two evils. You might reasonably judge them to be equally bad.

Beyond this, though, what is wrong with voting for a candidate or a political party that best represents the views and policies you agree with, even if that candidate or party is likely to lose?

If you vote for one of the two main candidates, you might wind up helping the one you least dislike to win, fine. But they aren't going to interpret your support as being half-hearted or coming with reservations: they're going to do what most politicians do, which is to assume that everyone who voted for them supported them on every last policy position that they have. They won't change their positions to suit you, because they have no incentive to find out what you dislike about their positions, because they've already gotten your vote.

If you vote for the third party candidate who best represents your views, however, it will be clear to the two parties in power WHY they lost your vote. It will be clear to them what policies you supported, and therefore why you didn't see fit to vote for their candidates. And that may prompt them to adjust their policies to suit you.

Or, you could not vote for any presidential candidate, which would also send the message to the two main parties that they failed to convince you to support them.

It's not obvious that this is the best course to take, but it's not obvious that it isn't, either. Again, it's reasonable to be uncertain about this, so it's reasonable for people to be undecided.

In conclusion, though it's popular to deride undecided voters, there appears to be some very good reasons to be undecided.

In fact, when you consider all the uncertainty, all the issues that require well-thought-out, well-reasoned treatment in order to arrive at a defensible opinion, it's arguable that the burden or proof should be on people like Limbaugh, Smiley, Oliver and all the other "decided" voters: Have they justifiably and exhaustively ruled out all the uncertainties?

Have they really put forward the mental and logical effort necessary to be so sure of their decisions on who to vote for?

Analysis: October 7th Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama in Tennessee

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:53:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of the presidential debate [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, October 7, 2008] between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in Nashville, Tennessee, hosted and moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC:

OBAMA: And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.

Comment: As he did in the previous debate, Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against President George W. Bush and McCain (and, once more, Republicans more generally), but without going into the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation.

Obama is also caricaturing their economic policy, saying they want to "strip away" regulations and consumer protections. Granted, Republicans might not support all the regulations and consumer protections that Obama thinks should be in place. But it's a caricature to say that Republicans want the market to "run wild" with no regulations or protections.

Obama wouldn't allow himself to be caricatured by his opponents as wanting to regulate people out of business: he shouldn't allow himself to caricature his opponents in the other direction.

***

OBAMA: You need somebody working for you and you've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

Comment: Obama is making a derisive reference to lobbyists and special interests. Why are lobbyists and special interests bad, though? Do they fail to represent legitimate interests among Americans? Obama needs to justify why we should look down on lobbyists and special interests.

***

MCCAIN: And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess. Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change. Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history -- in history.

Comment: McCain is criticizing Obama for receiving campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it's not clear what exactly he's accusing Obama of.

Is he saying that Obama accepted money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in return for defending them in the Senate? That would amount to accepting a bribe, which is a serious charge. If that is the accusation, then the burden of proof is on McCain to substantiate it. If he can't substantiate it, then he's making an unfair accusation against Obama and should retract it.

If that's not the accusation McCain is making, though, then what IS he saying? Why should we think less of Obama because he received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Is this some sort of lobbyists and special interests complaint, or an ad hominem argument? What point is McCain trying to make?

If he can't explain what point he's making, then he hasn't given us a reason to think less of Obama (not concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at least).

***

BROKAW: Sen. Obama, this is a question from you from Teresa Finch. Teresa?

FINCH: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Comment: If Finch's question is meant to imply that -- because the Republicans and Democrats got us into this mess, they can't fix it -- then she is committing the "can't fix your own mistakes" fallacy (even supposing that she's right that Republicans and Democrats caused the crisis, which is questionable). People frequently solve problems that they have caused.

Rather than disqualifying people as problem-solvers on the (inadequate) grounds that they are the ones who caused the problem (which, again, is arguable), it would instead be better to consider the question of what policy will fix this problem, leaving aside WHO is advocating it or offering to carry it out.

There is, though, another way that this question might be interpreted, that could avoid this unfair implication. What Finch might instead be saying is that the cause of this current financial crisis is the lack of discipline on the part of the two parties, say, a failure to exercise fiscal discipline and regulatory oversight, or a failure to carry out their duties.

This would be a different accusation, not obviously ad hominem in nature, and it would be more along the lines of questioning their character. That is, Finch's question could instead be suggesting that -- since the parties didn't exercise the discipline and attention to duty that would have prevented the crisis -- we have reason to question whether or not they'll have the discipline and attention to duty to carry out a solution.

Maybe this is what Finch is getting at. It's not clear, however, which makes it difficult to know how -- or even whether -- to answer Finch's question.

***

OBAMA: I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually. When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

Comment: Obama is trying to blame Bush for the deficits by arguing that, because there were surpluses WHILE Clinton (the previous president) was president and deficits WHILE Bush has been president, therefore there were surpluses BECAUSE Clinton was president and there are deficits BECAUSE Bush is president.

But this is flawed reasoning, because correlation does not imply causation. He'll certainly need a better argument than this in order to sustain the "failed policy" accusation that he is trying to make.

After all, doesn't Congress also play some role in whether or not there are surpluses or deficits? Don't general economic circumstances -- some of which are beyond the power of the president -- also play a role? Obama needs to show that there were no other contributing factors.

***

MCCAIN: I have advocated and taken on the special interests, whether they be the big money people by reaching across the aisle and working with Sen. [Russ] Feingold [D-Wisconsin] on campaign finance reform, whether it being a variety of other issues, working with Sen. Lieberman on trying to address climate change. I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. ... I have a clear record of reaching across the aisle, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy or others. That's my clear record.

Comment: McCain is saying he deserves praise for confronting special interests, but he doesn't explain what they are or why they need to be confronted.

He also says he deserves praise for bipartisanship and expresses a desire to unite the country, but he doesn't articulate what kind of unity and bipartisanship is both possible and desirable.

***

OBAMA: Now, when Sen. McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden.

Comment: This is false. If Fortune 500 CEOs were not paying ANY taxes, then they wouldn't be sharing the tax burden. Obama may think they're not sharing ENOUGH of the tax burden if they receive a $700,000 tax cut, but the only way they wouldn't be sharing it at all is if they were having their taxes cut to nothing.

***

BROKAW: How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?

Comment: McCain never answered this question. He criticized Obama's tax proposals, but he never addressed whether or how he would try to break the "bad habits" Brokaw asked about.

***

OBAMA: He wants to give average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts. That is not fair. And it doesn't work. Now, if we get our tax policies right so that they're good for the middle class, if we reverse the policies of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place and that Sen. McCain supported, then we are going to be in a position to deal with Social Security and deal with Medicare, because we will have a health care plan that actually works for you, reduces spending and costs over the long term, and Social Security that is stable and solvent for all Americans and not just some.

Comment: Obama is, again, making the "failed policies" accusation against Bush and McCain, again without defending it.

He is also making assertions about what constitutes fairness in tax policy, which is fine, but he needs to detail and defend those assertions. Fairness -- that is, justice, or giving people what they deserve -- is a complicated issue, and requires more attention than just saying "this isn't fair". Why isn't it fair? What other alternative would be fair, and why? What is the standard of fairness that he is appealing to?

***

MCCAIN: My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is have a commission, have the smartest people in America come together, come up with recommendations, and then, like the base-closing commission idea we had, then we should have Congress vote up or down. Let's not let them fool with it anymore. There's too much special interests and too many lobbyists working there. So let's have -- and let's have the American people say, "Fix it for us."

Comment: Again, McCain complains about lobbyists and special interests without specifying what they are and why they are bad.

***

OBAMA: One last point I want to make on energy. Sen. McCain talks a lot about drilling, and that's important, but we have three percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. So what that means is that we can't simply drill our way out of the problem. And we're not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming.

Comment: Obama -- like his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in the vice presidential debate -- is making a "silver bullet" caricature.

McCain has proposed more drilling for oil to meet the country's energy needs, but Obama is making it sound like this is ALL McCain has proposed. When and where has McCain said that the country can "simply drill" its way out of its energy problems? Hasn't McCain also proposed nuclear, coal, and alternative energy initiatives?

***

MCCAIN: By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.

Comment: Some have claimed that it was offensive for McCain to refer to Obama as "that one". For instance, on his show October, 8, 2008, talk show host Larry King asked Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, whether she was offended by it.

McCain's reference was a bit impersonal, but it's not obvious that it should be construed as offensive. (There are, after all, two candidates: this one and that one. And, along those lines, McCain would refer to himself as "this one".) Those -- like King -- who are suggesting that someone might take offense to this reference should explain why.

***

BROKAW: Next question for you, Sen. Obama, and it comes from the E section over here and it's from Lindsey Trella. Lindsey?

TRELLA: Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?

Comment: It's not clear that either McCain or Obama answers this question. The question itself, though, is also unclear. A "commodity" in what sense? Is Trella asking whether or not health care coverage should be sold on the market (as opposed to being provided for free?)?

This lack of clarity in the question doesn't necessarily let McCain and Obama off the hook, though, as neither of them asked for the question to be clarified.

***

OBAMA: That is a fundamental difference that I have with Sen. McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That's what we've been going through for the last eight years. It hasn't worked, and we need fundamental change.

Comment: Once more, Obama makes the "failed policies" assertion without giving substance to it.

And he caricatures McCain as being in favor of "deregulation in every circumstance", which is simply false.

***

BROKAW: Phil Elliott is over here in this section, and Phil Elliott has a question for Sen. McCain. Phil?

ELLIOTT: Yes. Sen. McCain, how will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?

Comment: Again, it's not clear that either McCain or Obama answered this question. McCain talked about being careful in sending military forces into different areas, and Obama talked about the strains the intervention in Iraq was causing to the budget. But neither of them talked specifically about how the recent financial crisis would affect U.S. policy regarding peacekeepers and military intervention.

***

BROKAW: Sen. Obama, let me ask you if -- let’s see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake?

Comment: Again, neither candidate answered this question, which was to lay out the standards under which the U.S. would use military force even when national security was not at stake.

******

BROKAW: This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?

Comment: It was not appropriate for Brokaw to pose this as a yes-or-no question, since either answer would have given a misleading impression of each candidates position.

To their credit, both McCain and Obama refused to answer with a simple "yes" or "no". McCain did a very good job of describing the pitfalls that would have presented:

"If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior."

***

BROKAW: So we have to move along. Over in section A, Terry Shirey -- do I have that right, Terry?

SHIREY: Senator, as a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel. If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?

Comment: Obama talked about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and made it clear he would consider military options -- even without the consent of the U.N. Security Council -- to prevent it. But he never clearly answers the question of whether he would consider military options -- even without the consent of the U.N. Security Council -- if Iran attacked Israel (with or without nuclear weapons).

Analysis: October 2nd Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in Missouri

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:04:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of the vice presidential debate [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, October 2, 2008] between Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, hosted and moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS:

IFILL: The House of Representatives this week passed a bill, a big bailout bill -- or didn't pass it, I should say. The Senate decided to pass it, and the House is wrestling with it still tonight. As America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill, Senator Biden, was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?

BIDEN: ... I think it's neither the best or worst of Washington, but it's evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we've ever had. As a consequence, you've seen what's happened on Wall Street. If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see now.

Comment: Echoing his running mate -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the presidential debate -- Biden is making the "failed policies" accusation against Bush and McCain (and, again, Republicans more generally) without going into the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation. Biden has to provide a detailed argument if he is going to blame the current financial difficulties on the policies of President George W. Bush and other Republicans. He makes the accusation, but provides very little substance to back it up.

Responding to the same question from Ifill, Palin seemed to endorse the rescue effort passed by the Senate, though she didn't obviously answer whether this action represented the "best or worst" of Washington politics.

***

IFILL: You both would like to be vice president. Senator Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight?

Comment: As Ifill soon noted, neither candidate answered this question.

Biden said that shrinking the gap of polarization is "what I've done my whole career ... I have been able to reach across the aisle". And Palin said that she and her running mate -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- are both "known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done". But neither of them said what they WOULD do in the future to lessen political polarization. Nor did either of them give much substance to their claims that they had done so in the past.

Moreover, Ifill's question seemed to be premised on a call to unify the country (i.e., how would the candidates promote unity instead of polarity). But, as is typical of such calls, she doesn't spell out what kind of unity is desirable or even possible.

***

PALIN: Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America.

Comment: Palin is making a call to get "special interests" out of politics. But she doesn't define what a special interest is, why they are a bad thing, or why they should be viewed as standing in the way of "getting business done for the people of America."

***

BIDEN: We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate.

Comment: This is a caricature. It is not true that McCain and Republicans answer every economic difficulty with a call to deregulate any more than Biden and Democrats answer every economic difficulty with a call MORE regulations.

***

BIDEN: Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild.

Comment: Palin was not asked about McCain's position on deregulation. Biden -- as noted in the previous excerpt -- made an accusation in that direction, but Ifill never asked Palin to reply to it. After Biden made his accusation about McCain and deregulation, Ifill asked Palin to reply to Biden's comments on health care. Palin instead responded to Biden's comments on tax cuts, after which Biden made the above statement faulting her for not talking about deregulation.

***

IFILL: Senator Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Governor Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Senator Biden.

BIDEN: Well Gwen, where I come from, it's called fairness, just simple fairness. The middle class is struggling. The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break. Now, that seems to me to be simple fairness. The economic engine of America is middle class. It's the people listening to this broadcast. When you do well, America does well. Even the wealthy do well. This is not punitive. John wants to add $300 million, billion in new tax cuts per year for corporate America and the very wealthy while giving virtually nothing to the middle class. We have a different value set. The middle class is the economic engine. It's fair. They deserve the tax breaks, not the super wealthy who are doing pretty well. They don't need any more tax breaks. And by the way, they'll pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan.

Comment: I think it should be noted that Biden mentions several different moral considerations in this discussion of tax policy, here, though they are jumbled together and not clearly identified.

He says that raising taxes on those with higher incomes is a matter of fairness. In particular, he says that middle-income families are "struggling", insisting that they should have their taxes lowered, or at least not raised. This is an appeal to the moral consideration of compassion and aiding the needy.

He then calls the middle class the "economic engine of America", which is a different appeal. He seems to be arguing that a prosperous middle class will bring about good consequences for the country as a whole, including those who are not middle-class.

After this, he insists that Obama's tax proposals are "not punitive", which is an attempt to argue against the claim that taxing the wealthy (at a higher rate than those who are not wealthy) amounts to punishing success, rather than rewarding it. So, Biden is trying to reassure people that Obama's tax proposals will not violate the moral consideration of merit, which calls on us to reward those who work harder and are more productive.

Biden concludes by making another appeal to the consideration of need, saying that the wealthy are not in need, and therefore shouldn't get tax breaks.

So, Biden has several different arguments going on in his remarks. I'm not going to go into whether he does a good job of making any of these arguments -- although, I will say that he does a poor job of simply separating them out, and he makes little effort at defending his definitions of "middle class" and "wealthy" -- but I think it's worthwhile pointing out how many different moral considerations are entering into this discussion.

***

PALIN: Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

Comment: Palin is referring to remarks that Biden made on September 3 and September 18, 2008. I have discussed these remarks in a recent post: Joe Biden Calls it "Patriotic" to Pay More in Taxes.

Palin is correct to criticize Biden's remarks about patriotism and taxation. However, she is also to be faulted for giving a one-sided account of the issue, as my recent post also discusses.

***

BIDEN: The bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminate those wasteful spending that exist in the budget right now, a number of things I don't have time, because the light is blinking, that I won't be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion tax dodge that, in fact, allows people to take their post office box off-shore, avoid taxes. I call that unpatriotic. I call that unpatriotic.

Comment: Again, more of Biden's one-sided take on the relationship between patriotism and taxation.

***

BIDEN: [On the topic of climate change and global warming] If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is man-made. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Comment: It's not obvious that this claim -- that you have to know the CAUSE of global warming in order to know how to SOLVE it -- is true. Is it the case that you can only solve a problem if you know what caused it?

More, acknowledging that there is a man-made cause of global warming doesn't obviously get you closer to a man-made solution to global warming. After all, there are several things that people can cause but not reverse (e.g., death).

***

BIDEN: John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. ... But here's the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John -- and the governor says John is for everything.

Comment: This is a caricature. More, it is a specific kind that you could call the "silver bullet" caricature.

McCain certainly has proposed drilling for oil domestically as a way of meeting our energy needs. But Biden is distorting McCain by saying that this is the ONLY proposal McCain has made. In fact, McCain has proposed other avenues in order to increase our supply of energy, including nuclear power, coal power, and alternative energies such as wind, solar, etc.

For Biden to say that McCain has only suggested domestic oil drilling -- as if McCain believes that drilling is the silver bullet needed to kill the werewolf that is our energy crisis -- is simply a distortion.

***

PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure.

Comment: This is a caricature. Neither Obama nor Biden has advocated surrender in Iraq. Surrender involves your troops ceasing hostilities, laying down their arms and allowing themselves to be taken captive. Obama has advocated withdrawal of much of the U.S. forces in Iraq, as well as a reduction in combat operations there. But he has not called for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq, or even for a complete cessation of combat operations there, let alone for U.S. forces to surrender.

***

IFILL: Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.

Comment: Neither Biden nor Palin answered this question. Though they each described a nuclear Iran and an unstable Afghanistan as "extremely dangerous", neither of them made any attempt to evaluate whether one was more of a threat than the other, or if they were equally dangerous.

***

BIDEN: Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion. But you asked a question about whether or not this administration's policy had made sense or something to that effect. It has been an abject failure, this administration's policy.

Comment: Biden is making the "failed policies" accusation with respect to the Bush administration's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Biden doesn't do nearly enough to substantiate his accusation. For instance, what policies WILL or WOULD HAVE worked in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

***

BIDEN: When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it." Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

Comment: Biden is making a bluntly false statement about the history of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the U.S. and France. Hezbollah has never been "kicked out" of Lebanon: certainly not in the time since Obama became a senator, and certainly not by the U.S. or France.

Many of the assertions made in this and other debates are dubious, but this is a falsehood that is not even arguable. Yet Ifill never challenged Biden on this, nor did Palin.

***

IFILL: Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?

PALIN: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period. Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry. But for those countries -- North Korea, also, under Kim Jong-il -- we have got to make sure that we're putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong-il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.

Comment: Palin does not answer the question, which concerned when nuclear weapons should be used. Palin says that the use of nuclear weapons would be unfortunate, and that our possession of them constitutes a deterrent, but she never says under what circumstances they should be USED rather than simply POSSESSED.

***

IFILL: Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?

Comment: Palin was also asked to respond to this question -- regarding whether the American public would be willing to intervene militarily in places such as Darfur -- but she did not give an answer.

***

IFILL: We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.

Comment: Ifill is referring to Biden's remarks, made August 10, 2007 on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show:

ALAN COLMES: What do you think when people say, "Joe Biden, he'd be strong on security. Great vice president."

BIDEN: I know. Well, the one that I find fascinating now is I'm apparently everybody's choice for secretary of state. A very nice thing. But I am not running for vice president. I would -- I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I would much prefer to stay as the chairman of the foreign relations committee than vice-president.

Biden never answered Ifill's question, however, or even acknowledged that he had pledged to turn down the vice presidential nomination. Instead, he answered the question that was put to Palin regarding what the role of the vice president is.

***

BIDEN: But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand.

Comment: Biden is correct to say that his ability to empathize with the plight of others shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of gender. However, it's not clear that anyone made that assertion. Certainly not Ifill or Palin. Who, then, are these remarks aimed at?

***

PALIN: And we have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington, D.C., no matter who's been in charge.

Comment: Palin appears to be making a call to unify the country. But she doesn't say what sort of unity is desirable or even possible. What instances of partisanship is she referring to, and what is wrong with such partisanship? Is she proposing to agree with Democrats from now on, in the name of unity? Of course not. She needs to give substance to this remark.

***

IFILL: Let's come full circle. You both want to bring both sides together. You both talk about bipartisanship. Once again, we saw what happened this week in Washington. How do you change the tone, as vice president, as number-two?

BIDEN: Well, again, I believe John McCain, were he here -- and this is a dangerous thing to say in the middle of an election -- but he would acknowledge what I'm about to say. I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party's mind, as well as Republicans', because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day -- he -- I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk." He said, "Joe, understand one thing. Everyone's sent here for a reason, because there's something in them that their folks like. Don't question their motive." I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I've disagreed. I've questioned their judgment. I think that's why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I've been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That's the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people's motives.

Comment: Ifill again submits a question based on a call to unify the country. And, again, she doesn't spell out what kind of unity is desirable or even possible.

Biden, for his part, says that the answer is to not question people's motivations, advocating it as a higher standard of debate and discussion. He says that he has lived up to this standard for a long time.

Assuming that he has really lived up to this standard, though, has it been successful? Is he really, as a result, significantly less partisan? Has he changed the tone in Washington with this kind of behavior?

More, questioning somebody's motivations isn't the only way of being derisive and failing to engage in civil debate. (Biden himself provides a good illustration of deriding one's opponents without questioning their motives towards the end of the debate: see below.) There is name-calling, ad hominem reasoning, calling your opponents stupid, misrepresenting and exaggerating the consequences of your opponent's policies, and so on.

So, while it's good hat Biden has pledged not to impugn his opponent's motives, it's hardly sufficient to create an atmosphere of civil debate in Washington.

(Keep in mind, too, that questioning people's motives is a very unreliable way of criticizing their actions. Bad things can be done out of good motives, and good things can be done out of bad motives.)

***

IFILL: [Addressing Palin on the same question regarding bipartisanship and changing the tone in Washington] Governor?

PALIN: You do what I did as governor, and you appoint people regardless of party affiliation, Democrats, independents, Republicans. You -- you walk the walk; you don't just talk the talk. And even in my own family, it's a very diverse family. And we have folks of all political persuasion in there, also, so I've grown up just knowing that, you know, at the end of the day, as long as we're all working together for the greater good, it's going to be OK. But the policies and the proposals have got to speak for themselves, also. And, again, voters on November 4th are going to have that choice to either support a ticket that supports policies that create jobs. You do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses. And you build up infrastructure, and you rein in government spending, and you make our -- our nation energy independent. Or you support a ticket that supports policies that will kill jobs by increasing taxes. And that's what the track record shows, is a desire to increase taxes, increase spending, a trillion-dollar spending proposal that's on the table. That's going to hurt our country, and saying no to energy independence. Clear choices on November 4th.

Comment: Palin first suggests appointing people regardless of party affiliation, which she says she has done, but she doesn't substantiate her claim that this has reduced partisanship and improved the tone of politics.

She goes on to mention the importance of knowing that everyone is "working together for the greater good". I take this to be a commitment along the lines of Biden's refusal to impugn the motives of his opponents, with all the same problems I noted above.

She ends by accusing her opponents of having failed economic policies -- as usual, without the necessary substantiation -- and describing them as saying "no" to energy independence, which is simply a caricature: it's fine for her to argue that her opponent's policies will fail to result in energy independence, but it's not OK to misrepresent them as BEING OPPOSED to energy independence.

In summary, she offers unclear suggestions about how to decrease partisanship, and then moves on to deriding her opponents.

***

BIDEN: And Barack Obama and I don't measure progress toward that change based on whether or not we cut more regulations and how well CEOs are doing, or giving another $4 billion in tax breaks to the Exxon Mobils of the world.

Comment: Obama made a similar assertion in his acceptance speech August 28, 2008 (Analysis: Barack Obama: Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech). As then, this is a caricature that serves to demonize Republicans, to make it look like they evaluate the health of the economy merely by looking at wealthy CEOs and oil companies.

Biden just got through talking about how he wouldn't question his opponent's motives: but caricaturing them in this way is hardly any better than questioning their motivations, is it?

Joe Biden Calls it "Patriotic" to Pay More in Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:18:00 +0000

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden (DE) recently made remarks saying that it would be patriotic for wealthy Americans to pay more in taxes.

At a rally in Sarasota, FL, on September 3, 2008, Biden responded to a member of the audience who asked about the tax proposals of Biden's running mate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am a big supporter of you and Barack Obama, but I have friends who are successful and quite wealthy -- this is Sarasota, there are a lot of them here -- who are concerned about your tax policies, that people earning over $250,000 will have a tax increase, uh, and, what can I say to them, what can you say to them? Thank you.
BIDEN: It's time to be patriotic, that's what you say to them.
[AUDIENCE APPLAUSE.]
* Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Biden brings town hall to Sarasota
* YouTube: Joe Biden: Paying Higher Taxes Is Patriotic

In an interview September 18, 2008, on ABC's "Good Morning America" with Kate Snow, Biden said:

BIDEN: We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.
SNOW: Anybody making over $250,000 ...
BIDEN: ... is gonna pay more.
SNOW: ... is gonna pay more.
BIDEN: You got it. It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.
* Real Clear Politics: Biden's "Patriotic" Taxes Comment (September 18, 2008)
* Associated Press: Biden says McCain's economic answers go nowhere
* Associated Press: Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act
* NewsBusters: ABC's Snow to Biden: Why Aren't You 'Further Ahead In the Polls'? (September 18, 2008)

The Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (AZ), responded later that day to Biden's comments on "Good Morning America":

MCCAIN: Today Senator Obama's running mate said that raising taxes is patriotic. Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic. It's not a badge of honor. It's just plain dumb. ... The billions in tax increases that Senator Obama is proposing would kill even more jobs during tough economic times. I’m not going to let that happen.
* Associated Press: Biden says McCain's economic answers go nowhere

As did McCain's running-mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (AK):

PALIN: Our opponents may have some strange ideas about raising taxes. To them raising taxes and Joe Biden said it again today raising taxes is about patriotism ... To the rest of America that's not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse. This isn't about anyone's patriotism. It’s about Barack Obama's poor judgment.
* Fox News: The GOP Ticket Goes after the Democratic Ticket

This exchange -- between Biden on the one side and McCain and Palin on the other -- is a classic example of the political debate on tax policy. Both sides are bringing up relevant moral considerations, but -- true to the behavior typical of politicians -- are giving one-sided accounts of the issue, and depicting their opponents as not having any legitimate moral points of their own to make. That is, they point out the moral considerations that support their position, but they ignore the ones that support their opponent's position.

For instance, Biden says that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Certainly, there are legitimate services that the government provides, and people should be happy -- or at least content -- to give the money needed to provide those services, so long as it is within reason.

But there is plenty of room for debate regarding what constitutes a legitimate service, and what constitutes a reasonable amount of taxation. Biden, however, acts as if anyone who opposes the tax rates proposed by Obama are unreasonable to the point that they can only be described as unpatriotic. That is, he isn't willing to consider that someone might reasonably object to the tax rates proposed by Obama, so he instantly explains their opposition as relating to a lack of patriotism. He demonizes them, in other words.

McCain and Palin, on the other hand, make the point that higher taxes might result in less economic growth and more unemployment. This is a legitimate concern.

But McCain and Palin don't treat their position as arguable, either, or think that it needs to be weighed against other considerations. McCain describes the Obama-Biden tax policy as "just plain dumb". In other words, he derides his opponents as stupid.

Tax policy is a complicated issue, though neither side chooses to describe it that way. Lots of moral considerations and empirical uncertainties come into play:

Need: What needs do people have? What needs should the government satisfy, and what needs should people be expected to satisfy by themselves?
Merit: What amount of money is it fair to take from people? How much of a person's earnings is a result of their own work and productivity, and how much is a result of the government and the services it provides?
Empirical matters: Will a higher tax rate increase revenues, or decrease them by depressing economic activity? What tax policies will give people an incentive to work more and be more productive, or to work less and seek more government support?

Biden is being blind to concerns that higher taxes might depress the economy, making life tougher for everyone, particularly those who already have low incomes and can hardly afford to lose their jobs. He is also ignoring the notion that -- as a matter of merit -- people should be allowed to hold on to the income they have earned through their own productivity. He doesn't question the patriotism of those who take more in government services than they truly need, nor does he praise people for earning so much that they are able to pay enough taxes in order to provide for those who ARE truly needy.

McCain and Palin, meanwhile, are being blind to concerns that taxes are required to pay for government services that address legitimate needs and are necessary for most people to earn any money at all.

The debate about tax policy -- like most political issues -- is regularly mangled in this way. Rather than bringing up all the moral considerations involved and then taking a stand on how you think they balance out, politicians typically just behave as if all the moral considerations point in their favor.

And they do this by not bringing up any of the ones that don't point in their favor.

Opinion Polls

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:00:00 +0000

The use of polls in politics is often a subject of discussion.

People frequently refer to opinion polls in political debate, without giving much care to whether the polls report accurate data. Unless a poll is conducted among a large, representative sample of the group whose views or opinions it is attempting to represent, it risks being inaccurate. The poll's questions must also be crafted carefully, or they will lead respondents to give certain answers.

But apart from issues of accuracy, there are some other ways that polls are misused in political debate.

The "Basing Their Views on Polls" Accusation

Politicians and pundits frequently accuse their opponents of being influenced by polling data. They claim, for instance, that their opponents are using polls to determine their political positions: if a poll says that the voters want X, then their opponent (so the claim goes) decides to support X. Their political views are based on what the polls say voters want.

There are a couple of points on which to challenge this sort of claim.

In the first place, these accusations are seldom backed up with conclusive evidence. How would you prove this sort of claim, after all? You'd need to do more than just show that someone supported X and that a poll showed that voters also supported X. You'd need to show that the former led to the latter. That is, you'd need to show more than just correlation, but CAUSATION.

In the second place, it's arguable that reflecting the will of the voters is what politicians are supposed to do. As I say, this is arguable. It is often argued that it demonstrates a lack of character for politicians to simply reflect the will of the voters. And others argue that the job of our elected representatives is to exercise their best judgment, even if that judgment is contrary to what the voters think is best.

But this is all debatable. There certainly ought to be SOME connection between the positions of politicians and will of the voters. And it's not obviously wrong for politicians to be abiding by what they want (though it's not obviously always RIGHT, either).

And, even if it were demonstrably true that someone had adopted a political position simply in order to abide by what the voters want, that tells us nothing about whether that position is wrong. It is ad hominem reasoning to argue that a position should be rejected because someone else adopted it on the basis of a poll.

At any rate, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with politicians using polling. In fact, it can be extraordinarily helpful when it comes to knowing where to direct their efforts. Suppose that polling reveals to a politician that voters overwhelmingly agree with his position on abortion, but overwhelmingly disagree with his position on taxes: this information will indicate that his time would be better spent trying to convince people that his views on taxes are correct, rather than his abortion policies, which his constituents already agree with.

Appealing to the Majority

Polls are often used in another way, to try to convince people out of their positions.

For instance, it is often pointed out to a politician that their position on a particular issue runs contrary to what polls say the people want. It usually comes in the form of a statement along the lines of:

"Polls show that a majority of people in the country or in the world oppose you on X, or have a negative opinion of you: how do you respond to this?"

The idea is to put the politician on the spot. How can he oppose the will of the majority?

But the majority isn't always right. Sometimes they are wrong. To argue that "a majority believes X, therefore X is true" is to make a fallacious argument known as argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people").

So, if someone points out that a poll says that a majority of people hold a particular belief, it is important not to infer -- or to allow anyone to imply -- that that belief is therefore correct.

Polls Seldom Ask About Justification

Related to the "appeal to the majority" matter, it is important to note that polls -- though they often ask people their opinions about what is good and bad, right and wrong, etc. -- they seldom ask voters WHY they hold those opinions. That is, they seldom ask voters to defend their opinions, or to explain how they justify holding those opinions.

As such, merely looking at polling data, you get little or no idea about whether peoples' opinions are based on actual facts or sound reasoning. Often times, if you ask people to defend their opinions, you discover that their opinions are based on false beliefs or flawed reasoning.

As such, we should be unimpressed by reports that "a majority of people believe such-and-such" if we are given no indication that that belief is based on true premises and valid reasoning.

Conclusion

Polls are not necessarily a bad thing. But they don't necessarily carry all the weight that people imagine that they do. If someone brings up a poll in a political discussion, be careful about what conclusions are being offered on the basis of the poll.

Analysis: September 26th Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and John McCain in Mississippi

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:02:00 +0000

Following are excerpts of the presidential debate [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, September 26, 2008] between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) at the University of Mississippi, hosted and moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS's NewsHour:

OBAMA: "We also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down. It hasn't worked."

Comment: Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against Bush and McCain (and Republicans more generally), but without going into the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation. More, his description of his opponents' economic theory is a caricature (in the same way as it is a caricature when people say that the economic theory of Obama and the Democrats is "more regulations, more taxes, bigger government").

***

OBAMA: "We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad."

Comment: Again, Obama is caricaturing his opponents' economic philosophy. Who has said that regulation is ALWAYS bad?

***

OBAMA: "It's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be."

Comment: And again, Obama is caricaturing his opponents' economic philosophy. Who has said that less regulation is always better (implying that zero regulation is best of all)?

***

MCCAIN: "Who's the person who has believed that the best thing for America is -- is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair?"

Comment: For McCain to imply Obama does NOT want a "fundamentally fair" tax system is a caricature. Granted, McCain and Obama are going to disagree about what amounts to fairness in the tax code, but that shouldn't be distorted into the claim that one of them wants fairness and the other one doesn't.

***

LEHRER: "What are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"

Comment: Both candidates -- particularly Obama -- were slow to answer this question. Lehrer had to do quite a bit of prodding in order to get them to mention any specific, sizable changes in spending they would make in response to the $700 billion financial bailout that is currently being considered.

***

MCCAIN: "The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States."

Comment: McCain is correct that the decision to invade Iraq is now in the past, and the next president is not going to be in a position to make it again. But that doesn't mean that this decision isn't an appropriate topic of discussion, as McCain seems to imply. One of the ways we learn about and evaluate a candidate is by looking at the choices they made on issues in the past. The decision on whether or not to invade Iraq may not come up again, but similar ones might. It's fair for us to discuss how McCain and Obama would handle those decisions by looking at their positions on similar ones from the past.

***

OBAMA: "And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is."

Comment: Obama is making an ad hominem appeal to hypocrisy. He is arguing that -- because McCain has not always been prudent about what he says -- McCain's criticism of Obama for not being prudent in what HE says is not credible. It is ad hominem reasoning to argue that -- if someone is hypocritical and doesn't practice what they preach -- then what they preach is false.

***

OBAMA: "The single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon. So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked."

Comment: Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation. For it to be effective, though, he needs to give us reason to believe that there was an alternative that could have succeeded. For instance, what alternative policy would have stopped Iran from installing more centrifuges and developing its nuclear capabilities?

Alcee Hastings Says Palin "Don't Care Too Much about Jews and Blacks"

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:22:00 +0000

Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL) on September 24, 2008, made the following statement [ABC News: Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks', CNN: Florida congressman points to Palin to rally Jews to Obama, Post Chronicle: Alcee Hastings Attempts To Scare Jews About Palin] about Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), the Republican vice presidential nominee:

"If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention ... Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

He also said:

"Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state ... And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Hastings is accusing Palin -- along with "anybody toting guns and stripping moose" -- of racism and anti-Semitism. He is also implying that -- unlike "Jews and blacks" -- Palin and people like her don't care about "affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state ... equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Hastings' accusations of racism and anti-Semitism are baseless and demonstrably false. Likewise his claims that Palin and people who carry guns and hunt don't care about affordable health care, alternative energy, etc., as opposed to Jewish people and black people.

There are plenty of gun-owning hunters who aren't racist or anti-Semitic, and who DO care about energy independence and the separation of church and state, etc. Similarly, I'm sure we can find a fair share of Jewish people and black people who DON'T care about these things.

Hastings is advocating stereotypes that are both false and malicious. It is easy to prove that these stereotypes are false -- I'm sure we'll be treated to a slew of examples over the next few days -- and the stereotypes serve to demonize his opponents.

If Hastings wants to stand by these stereotypes, he should be expected to provide evidence backing them up. If he can't -- or won't -- defend these stereotypes, then it's fair to denounce him for making false allegations of racism and anti-Semitism.

That is, he's engaging in malicious, dishonest identity politics (also known as "race-baiting" and "playing the race card").

(Reports indicate that that Hastings' comments were met with laughter and applause. His audience also deserves the be denounced for encouraging Hastings, rather than defying his remarks.)

"Setting a Higher Standard"

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:48:00 +0000

What are we to make of politicians and pundits who lament the poor state of civil discourse and call for everyone to live up to a higher standard and to engage in civil debate?

While the call to "improve the tone of our political discourse" is, in principle, in line with the mission of The Civil Debate Page, it's too often made in a way that doesn't lead to improved conduct, and instead only creates confusion. That is, while people often talk about setting a higher standard, improving our civil discourse, and following guidelines of civil debate, they rarely actually live up to their words. To make matters worse, other people then use them as a good example for how to engage in civil debate.

Lack of Clarity on Standards

Part of the problem is that people are unclear what they're talking about when they express the wish for a "higher standard of debate". Higher in what way?

They typically seem to mean that they want a debate that is more respectful, less acrimonious and partisan, that focuses on issues and facts rather than going off onto tangents. While this description is more helpful, it could still do to be spelled out more.

The danger is that -- with an unclear account of what this "higher standard" amounts to -- people will make unfair and biased judgments about who is or isn't living up to that standard. Without this clarity we get this result: people routinely insisting that their side is living up to a higher standard than their opponents, even while engaging in all the same misbehavior -- name-calling, ad hominem reasoning, caricature, exaggeration, etc. -- as their opponents.

The call to set a higher standard is sort of the flip side of the accusation of "negative politics". That is, people sometimes dismiss entirely legitimate political and moral debate as "negative politics" because they have an unclear understanding of what good debate is.

In the same way, because people have an unclear understanding of what good debate is, they sometimes venerate illegitimate, uncivil behavior in debate and uphold it as living up to a higher standard. They imagine and say that they're living up to a higher standard of debate when they're actually falling well short of even a minimum standard of civil discourse.

People are, unfortunately, adept at taking a lack of clarity and putting it to self-serving use: witness the abundance of selective outrage in the political arena, as people of all political stripes denounce the bad actions of their opponents while ignoring it when their allies (or even they themselves) engage in the same misbehavior.

What SHOULD We be Doing?

So, what DOES it mean to REALLY be living up to a higher standard of debate and civil discourse?

One thing it involves is having a clear understanding of what counts as good reasoning. Along these lines, we need to have a good understanding of what sorts of behaviors are a hindrance to productive, civil debate: behaviors such as name-calling, ad hominem reasoning, caricature, exaggeration, etc.

But understanding is not enough. We need to put our understanding into action, and do it in two important ways:

Set a good example in your own conduct, by using good reasoning and NOT engaging in name-calling, ad hominem reasoning, etc.
Point out and condemn misbehavior when anyone else engages in it, even if -- or ESPECIALLY if -- it comes from one of your own political allies or party members.

It's incredibly important that uncivil debate be criticized wherever it occurs. Otherwise, the call for "setting a higher standard" becomes just another biased, selective tactic used to make yourself look good while making your opponents look bad. This, in fact, is what most politicians and pundits do: they make some statements in the abstract about how important civil discourse is, but then they only ever pick out the failures of their opponents, casting a blind eye to their own misbehavior and the misbehavior of their allies.

In other words, most politicians and pundits only espouse a higher standard and criticize uncivil discourse when it is to their political advantage to do so. Otherwise, they change the subject.

Best Response

How, then, should we respond when someone makes the call for us to set a higher standard in our political and civil discourse?

There are several appropriate responses:

For one, ask them to define the higher standard that they're espousing. Can they clearly define the things that we should be doing -- e.g., good reasoning -- and the things that we shouldn't be doing -- e.g., name-calling and ad hominem reasoning?

Also, ask them if they believe we should be even-handed in applying this higher standard. That is, should it apply equally to them, and not just their opponents?

Perhaps best of all, give them examples of politicians and pundits violating the norms of civil debate -- you'll find plenty on this site -- and see if they'll denounce those violations, even if it's from someone in their own party (or even they themselves).

EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

"In America, we've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility -- Yes. We need to restore civility in our civil discourse."
-- Pastor Rick Warren, CNN Transcript: Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, August 17, 2008.

***

"... we must applaud Senator Barack Obama's sticking to his promise about being a new kind of presidential candidate who refuses to attack his opponent with the mudslinging that has characterized American politics for most of its history (and that is the centerpiece of Senator John McCain’s campaign)".
-- Eric Chivian, New York Times Letter: Obama's Costly Shifts, August 17, 2008.
Comment: This is a dubious assertion, that Obama's campaign lives up to a higher standard of civil debate while McCain's does not (more, that taking the low road is "the centerpiece" of McCain's presidential campaign).

***

"While it is true that negative politicking often works, in this election it also serves to accentuate Barack Obama's message of change. Many people are tired of the Karl Rove-like tactics currently being employed by John McCain's campaign. This can only be good news for Mr. Obama."
-- Thilo Weissflog, New York Times Letter: The Candidates and Their Metaphors, August 7, 2008.
Comment: This is a dubious assertion, that Obama's campaign lives up to a higher standard of civil debate while McCain's does not. Also note the allegation of negative politics.

***

"As the general election begins, let us remember our obligation to honor the highest values of our democracy and conduct this campaign in a spirit of respect for the Republican nominee."
-- Former Vice President Al Gore (D), CNN Transcript: Al Gore Endorses Barack Obama, June 16, 2008.

***

"For too long, now, Washington has been consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious challenge facing us as an opportunity to trade insults; disparage each other's motives; and fight about the next election. For all the problems we face, if you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don't think we're capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions ... Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ide as than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. They want to change not only the policies and institutions that have failed the American people, but the political culture that produced them. ... There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. That is how most Americans treat each other. And it is how they want the people they elect to office to treat each other. ... I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries. We are rivals for the same power. But we are also compatriots. We are fellow Americans, and that shared distinction means more to me than any other association. ... There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin. I promise you, from the day I am sworn into office until the last hour of my presidency, I will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud. And I won't care who gets the credit."
-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Four Year Vision for America, May 15, 2008.
Comment: McCain also engages in some "uniting the country" rhetoric, here.

***

"What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems."
-- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Announcement for President, February 10, 2007.

"Failed Policies"

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:12:00 +0000

Politicians and pundits routinely accuse their opponents of supporting "failed policies." As with most claims in the political arena, the standard of appropriate usage for this one are unclear, which makes it prone to falsehood and exaggeration.

What Was the Goal of the Policy?

First of all, many times when the "failed policies" assertion is made, there is no clarification of what goal the policies were intended or expected to achieve. Without a good understanding of what the goal of the policy in question was, it's going to be difficult -- if not impossible -- to evaluate whether the policy failed or succeeded. And, if different people have different views about what the goal of a certain policy is, then it is entirely possible that they will come to very different judgments about whether that policy has succeeded or failed, because they will be evaluating it light of different standards.

What is the Time Frame of Evaluation?

Another matter typically left unaddressed is the time frame in which it is appropriate to evaluate a policy. That is, how long will it take for us to know whether the policy has worked or not? A day? A month? A year? A decade or more?

It seems that the inclination among many people in politics is to be very impatient with the policies of their opponents, and to expect results quickly (maybe more quickly than is reasonable). But, when it comes to their OWN policies, of course, patience becomes a virtue. If their own policies don't bring about good results quickly, or in a timely fashion, they urge everyone to be patient and give the policy more time to take effect.

We should be wary of this sort of double-standard.

Was the Policy Implemented Fully?

Politics often involves compromise. It is very rare for someone to implement their ideas exactly the way they envision them, without having to make any concessions to their rivals and opponents.

As a result, when a policy does not bring about the expected results, its defenders often argue that the policy was hamstrung, because it wasn't really, FULLY implemented as intended.

This then leads us into a (legitimate) debate about whether the amendments and exceptions lead to the failure of the policy, or if it is the policy itself -- even without amendments and exceptions -- that is at fault.

Politicians and pundits, naturally, make this "not fully implemented" argument on a hypocritical basis, as well. That is, they tend to note that their OWN policies were implemented with amendments and exceptions (which they blame for the policies' failure), but refuse to recognize that the same was done for their opponent's policies.

What is the Empirical Evidence?

Policies are offered in order to bring about empirical results. Often, however, the "failed policies" assertion is made without offering any empirical data to back it up. This involves more than just anecdotes, it means citing substantive research data.

Moreover, it must be shown that any empirical data offered as evidence of the failure (or success) of a policy relates to the actual goal of that policy. If the goal of a policy being evaluated is not clearly stated, it's not obvious how empirical data is going to reveal the success or failure of that policy.

Could Some Other Policy Have Succeeded?

Failure is only disappointing if there was some possibility of success. So, a policy's failure is only deplorable if there was some other policy that could have succeeded in reaching the goal in question. Nobody can fault me for being unable to jump from here to Pluto: nobody else can do it, and there's no other practical way for me or anyone else to get there, either. I CAN be faulted for failing to deposit a check on time at the bank, when I could have done so if I'd just left home a little earlier.

Similarly, for the "failed policies" assertion to have any real teeth to it, it must be shown that some other policy or policies could have realistically brought about the desired result. And that, of course, is an additional assertion that requires a lot of substantiation.

What is the Magnitude of the Failure?

Even if it is correct to say that a certain policy has failed, it is important to keep that claim in context. How bad is that failure? How many people are harmed, and how severely are they harmed?

Politicians and pundits frequently engage in exaggeration, and the "failed policies" assertion is one of the most common forums for it.

Best Response

The "failed policies" assertion is thrown about frequently and casually. We hear it made with reference to policies on economics and poverty, drugs, terrorism, war, diplomacy, education and more. But it is often made without much substantiation or evidence.

When the "failed policies" assertion is made, we should demand clarification on the following points:

What was the goal of the policy?
What is the appropriate time frame for evaluating the policy?
Was the policy fully implemented, or implemented without serious exceptions?
What is the empirical evidence of the policy's failure or success?
Were or are there any alternative policies that could have achieved the goal in question?
What is the magnitude of the policy's failure?

This sort of assertion should not be made carelessly. And we should insist that anyone who does make it be clear about what they are asserting.

False Causation: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:13:00 +0000

One of the oldest known fallacies is the argument that, if two things occur together, then one causes the other. That is, the fallacy of reasoning that the correlation of two things proves that there is a cause-effect relationship between them.

(True to its age, this fallacy has a Latin name: "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." It translates as, "with this, therefore because of this.")

If two things (or sorts of things) -- call them "A" and "B" -- occur together (for instance, one occurs before the other), it certainly does raise the possibility that they have some causal relationship, such as that A causes B.

However, correlation does not entail (or imply, guarantee, or necessitate) causation. We shouldn't immediately conclude that A causes B, or that B causes A, just because A and B occur together. It could be that A and B are both effects of something else. Or it could be that A and B have no causal relationship whatsoever, and that their correlation is simply coincidence.

(To put it in logical terms, correlation is a necessary -- but not sufficient -- condition for a causal relationship.)

Illustrative Examples

Some examples should help illustrate the point:

If you're standing at the train station, waiting for a train to arrive, likely what will happen is that you'll first hear an announcement that the train is coming, and then the train will show up. But it would be silly to conclude that the announcement CAUSES the train to show up. It's not as if making a new announcement will magically bring a new train into the station.
People who have a fever are often sick. They may faint, become ill, vomit, etc. But it would be a mistake to conclude that the fever CAUSES the illness or vomiting. Often the fever (along with the fainting and vomiting) is itself the effect of the flu or an infection, which is the true cause.
Birds migrate away from the poles and toward the equator just before winter, but the migration of birds doesn't CAUSE winter to happen.
It's often noted that there is a correlation between substance abuse and depression. But, does substance abuse cause depression, or does depression cause substance abuse? Or are the two just the effects of some other cause?
The students at a prestigious school have very high grades. Is that because the school does a good job at teaching them, or because the brightest students have all sought to be accepted into the school because of its reputation?
The people who go to a gym are all very healthy. Is that because the gym is doing a good job of getting them to exercise, or because health-conscious people tend to sign up for a gym?
Does watching pornography cause an obsession with sex, or is it the effect of such an obsession?
Does watching violent movies create a violent disposition, or do people who already have a violent disposition tend to watch violent movies?

Common Mistakes in Political Discussions

This form of fallacious reasoning -- "correlation implies causation" -- often comes up in the political arena in the context of monetary donations. That is, you often hear someone assert or argue, "Senator X supports such-and-such a position because he got money from a lobbyist or special interest group that supports the SAME position!" In other words, from the fact that the senator received money from a group supporting a particular position and the fact that the senator also supports that position, it is concluded that the money CAUSED the senator's position. But this is fallacious. After all, it could be that the cause and effect are the other way around. That is, it could be that the group gave the senator the money because of his support for their position.

Another instance of this kind of fallacious reasoning is how we instantly link economic circumstances to the president or whichever political party is in power. That is, when the economy is good, we give credit to the president, implicitly arguing, "the economy is good WHILE this person is president, therefore this president is the CAUSE of the good economy." And we do the same when the economy is bad. We blame the president for bad economic circumstances, implicitly arguing, "the economy is bad WHILE this person is president, therefore the economy is bad BECAUSE this person is president." This is not to say that presidents or political parties play no role in the health of the economy. But making a connection between the two requires more than just pointing to a correlation. Because, after all, correlation does not imply causation.

Conclusion

Understanding causal relationships is very important to understanding moral issues. However, causality is a complicated empirical matter, and cause and effect relationships are not always obvious. We should be careful to avoid hastily concluding that one thing is the cause of another merely on the basis that the two things go together, or that one precedes the other.

John McCain and Barack Obama at the Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum with Rick Warren

noreply@blogger.com (Civ) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:33:00 +0000

On August 17, 2008, presidential candidates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) met separately with Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in California [Transcript: CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL: Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum]. In the event -- titled the "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency" -- Warren questioned each of them on political, moral, and religious matters.

The following is an analysis of some of McCain and Obama's statements:

WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

Comment: Obama is right to say that judging when a baby, fetus, or unborn child gets human rights -- more generally, when they acquire moral standing -- is a difficult issue. And many of us might never encounter a situation where we need to have an answer to this question. But, if Obama becomes president, it's likely that he's going to have to take a stand on this issue in some way or another. If he's not going to do so, he should at least give some reason why it won't be necessary for him to do so as president (or even as a senator). Obama went on to assert that he supported Roe v. Wade and was pro-choice, so it's fair to expect him to outline how his position on abortion squares with the matter of the human rights and moral standing of the life that is being aborted.

***

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.

Comment: Obama doesn't answer the question, which was about whether he has a past history of voting to limit abortions. Instead, he talks about things that he WOULD do in the future.

***

OBAMA: Our politics is broken and Washington is so broken, that we can't bring together people of goodwill to solve these common problems. I think I have the ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines to get people to work on some common sense solutions to critical issues and I hope that I have the opportunity to do that.

Comment: Obama is making a fairly standard appeal to unite the country, here. But he doesn't explain how he would do so. If people have different moral priorities, how is he going to get them to agree on difficult moral issues?

***

WARREN: Let me ask you this: What would be the criteria for which you would commit troops to...
MCCAIN: American national security interests are threatened.
WARREN: ... I understand that, but what about like genocide in Darfur, or if mass killings took place in Georgia?
MCCAIN: Our obligation is to stop genocide wherever we can. We all know about Rwanda. No one knows that better than you and the Saddleback Church who have been so active. By the way, Cindy was just there with Mike Huckabee and Dr. Bill Frist and have seen what the women of Rwanda are doing. The women are taking charge of the future of Rwanda because they're saying "Never again," and they are doing an incredible job. Darfur our most respected former Secretary of State Colin Powell called genocide some years ago. The question is how can we effectively stop it? And obviously we've got to do more, and we've got to try to marshal the forces all over the world to join us. I think one of the things we ought to explore more carefully is us supplying the logistics and equipment and the aid, and the African countries step forward with the personnel to enforce a genuine cease- fire. It's a very complicated situation, as you know, but we've got to be committed to never saying "never again" again.

Comment: McCain doesn't answer the question, which concerned what circumstances would prompt him to send U.S. troops to stop genocide.

***

WARREN: Now, we've got a couple minutes left in this section. Here's a security question I didn't get to with Senator Obama. We didn't have enough time. When is our right to privacy, when our right to privacy and our right to national security collide?
MCCAIN: It does...
WARREN: How do you decide what takes precedent?
MCCAIN: It does collide, and there are always competing priorities. We must preserve the privacy of all of our citizens as much as possible because that is one of the fundamental and basic rights we have -- and, by the way, including a secret ballot for union organizers, a secret ballot, not a ballot that someone comes around and signs you up. That's a different subject, but the point is that we have now had technological advances over the last 20 or 30 years in communications that are remarkable. It is remarkable ability that our enemies have to communicate, so we have to keep up with that capability. I mean, there are too many ways -- through cyberspace and through other ways -- that people are able to communicate with one another. So we are going to have to step up our capabilities to monitor those. Sometimes there are calls from outside the United States, inside the United States. There are all kinds of communications of every different kind. So you need Congress to work together. You need a judiciary that will review these laws that we pass; and at the same time, it's just an example of our failure to sit down, Republican and Democrat, and work these things out together for the good of the nation's security instead of this constant fighting, which, according to our director of national intelligence, until we finally reached an agreement not long ago, was compromising our ability to keep America from attack. And so, there is a constant tension; it is changing with changes in technology, and we have to stay up with it.

Comment: Again, McCain doesn't answer the question. He agrees that there is a conflict -- a dilemma -- between the moral priorities of privacy and safety, but he doesn't spell out how we choose between them.

***

MCCAIN: America wants hope. America wants optimism. America wants us to sit down together. I have a record of reaching across the aisle and working with the other party, and I want to do that, and I believe, as I said, that Americans feel it is time for us to put our country first.

Comment: Like Obama, McCain is making a standard call for uniting the country. And, like Obama, he does little to spell out exactly HOW he would do so given that many Americans have different moral priorities.