Just Like Regular Politicians, Donald Trump Committed Straw Person Fallacies

Donald Trump, official portrait

President Donald Trump's recent fundraising speech to the Republican National Congressional Committee was packed with Straw Person fallacies, that is, he attacked his opponents for things they neither said nor believed. This made his opponents seem worse than they were, and made his own position seem morally righteous. I wrote yesterday about how this speech did a very good job of setting a positive agenda. Today, we will look at its problems. A fallacy is an unsound argument, especially an unsound argument that sounds better than it really is.

This is the Twenty-First Century, so let's call it the Straw Person fallacy, not the Straw Man fallacy.  People commit this fallacy in a debate when they ignore the good arguments that the other side makes, and instead invent a silly argument, pretend that the other side made the silly argument, and refute it. This prevents a direct clash between the two sides. It is very common, especially in politics. Fallacy expert Douglas Walton thinks that the Straw Person's first discussion was in a book by Stuart Chase, although people have been committing this fallacy for centuries. A speaker commits the Straw Person fallacy by misinterpreting, exaggerating, or underestimating the point that the other side makes.

This fallacy is the politician's stock in trade. For example, committing PolitiFact's 2010 "Lie of the Year," Republicans pretended that Obamacare was a "government takeover of healthcare." This greatly overstated the case, and made it possible for Republicans to attack Obamacare for things that it did not actually do. Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama once said, “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.” Since few, if any, Republicans advocate such a position, he was arguing against something they neither said or believed.

Here are some Straw Person fallacies that Mr. Trump committed during his RNCC speech:

Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of wanting to raise working people's taxes:

"Every single Democrat in Congress opposed our middle class tax cuts.  And if Democrats were to gain control of the House, the first thing they would do is raise your taxes.  They would raise your taxes.  They would take away what we’ve done and raise your taxes."

That misrepresented and distorted what the Democrats were saying. Tax cuts are popular, but the Republican tax cuts were, as an article in Fortune points out, skewed toward the very rich and corporations, while Democrats typically want to raise marginal tax rates, putting more burden on the rich, not the working people. To maintain that the Democrats were trying to attack middle-class and working people by raising their taxes misrepresents their opinions. At best, Mr. Trump oversimplified and distorted a complex question about taxes. His argument was powerful, as no one likes to pay taxes, but it did not accurately represent what the Democrats were saying.

 Mr. Trump also accused Democrats of apologizing for America:

"For the last eight years, Democrats apologized for America.  Republicans, on the other hand, are standing up for America.  (Applause.)  Right?  We’ve seen a lot of apologies." 

I have never actually understood what is so bad about apologizing when you do something wrong. Although "apologizing for America" has become quite the talking point, I have never seen any actual evidence that the Democrats have done much of this. For example, FactCheck.org carefully examined President Barack Obama's speeches and found no evidence that he had actually engaged in an apology tour, as his opponents had accused him of doing. Alas! When people repeat false charges over and over again, it becomes easy to believe them. But Mr. Trump was accusing the Democrats of something that they had not actually done.

Similarly, Mr. Trump repeated his campaign theme that Democrats were in favor of "open borders."

"Nowhere in the Democrats’ extremism — and nowhere can you see anything displayed more clearly than on immigration.  A vote for House Democrats is truly a vote for open borders — people pouring into our country, pouring in.  We have no idea who they are.  They’re coming in — open borders.  You look at sanctuary cities, where criminals are protected."

Let us be clear. Open borders might resemble the situation in the European Union, where citizens of one Union country can travel easily to another. Democrats have not advocated such a policy. Democrats typically do advocate some type of earned amnesty for Dreamers and the accommodation of carefully-screened refugees. Many Republicans oppose these policies, which they are entitled to do, but those policies are not "open borders," which is an outrageous exaggeration.

I do not particularly mean to pick on Mr. Trump, since many politicians misrepresent their opponents' position. They have been doing that ever since politicians came into being. Still, when Straw Person fallacies originate, we public speaking, communication, and debate people must point them out and complain about them. It is hard to engage in open dialogue if we pretend that our opponents are saying stupid things that they are not actually saying.

A great republic can make better policies if we talk about real issues, instead of pretending that our opponents have said something silly. When our opponents actually do say something silly, we can and should complain about it, but when they say something reasonable, we should cope with their real arguments. Make-believe does not solve our nation's problems.