Some principled conservatives are tying themselves in intellectual knots as they continue to embrace false dichotomies and shrink from the hard choices necessary to remove Donald Trump.
This is an opinion submission from a reader like you, part of a growing conversation about political affiliation, the future of conservatism, and the 2020 election. We encourage submissions from all perspectives in this most poignant of discussions.
Seeking to distinguish humans from the rest of nature, the ancients called us Homo sapiens, which is Latin for “the ape-like creature that is wise”. That’s always seemed like wishful thinking to me, especially when I hear my fellow ape-like creatures say things like “You’re not going to vote for Hillary Clinton? You must hate women!”
Those same ancients appeared to have recognized their mistake, and consequently developed the science of logic, in which statements are tested for their validity and, ultimately, wisdom. Some statements, such as the line above about Hillary, contain logical mistakes, known as fallacies. Some logical fallacies are so common they are given names: a sort of shorthand for identifying why an argument fails to rise to the level of wisdom. This particular fallacy is known as The False Dichotomy (or The False Dilemma).
The False Dichotomy consists of erroneously reducing a problem to two extremes, and demanding that the listener choose between them. “If you don’t brush twenty times a day, all your teeth will fall out!” Obviously, those aren’t the only two choices. There’s a lot of room in between.
The false dichotomy has been a pervasive element in American political discourse for years. Every conservative who’s engaged in debate over the last fifty years has no doubt been on the receiving end of “Only a racist would criticize Obama.” Or “Isn’t it better to have abortion-on-demand, so those unwanted kids don’t grow up deprived?”
Unfortunately, the false dichotomy doesn’t only affect one party. It became the central argument of the 2016 election: “If you’re not for Donald, you’re for Hillary.” I’ve lost count of all the times I’ve heard that old chestnut, and how many times I responded: Those aren’t the only two choices. You could, instead, VOTE FOR SOMEONE GOOD.
That’s what I did in 2016. I voted for Evan McMullin, and I’ve always been grateful to him for joining the race. He didn’t even qualify as a long-shot candidate: he was just a place for me, as a decent human being, to cast my vote for someone who wasn’t incompetent and corrupt.
I was willing to cast a protest vote, and I appreciate Evan for giving me the option, but now it’s time to take back the country, and take back the conservative vote from the frauds and usurpers in the Republican party. To my endless shame, I learn that 65 million Americans accepted the false dichotomy of: “If Hillary wins, it will be the end of American democracy.”
No, it wouldn’t! Do you really think America is so fragile? America has been through two world wars. America has survived the Red Scare and yellow fever. If we are so vulnerable that a single bad election can destroy us, then I have bad news for you: we’re already dead.
Well, I don’t believe that, and deep down, I don’t think you believe it, either. I’ll prove it: imagine that Hillary had won in 2016. Imagine that she had gotten enough votes to win the Electoral College, had taken the oath of office, and sat in the White House as I write this. Now ask yourself: what would you be doing right now in that alternative universe?
Give up on America, since no matter what you do, Hillary will be the end of American democracy? Curl yourself into the fetal position on the floor, waiting for the sweet release of death? Surrender to the Forces of Darkness? Or would you be, with me, fighting her agenda, and working to defeat her at the ballot box?
Yet despite the clear logical fallacy of this argument, I now see my fellow conservatives making the same mistake again, only this time with Bernie Sanders. The editor of these pages, Justin Stapley, has written that he would never vote for a socialist like Bernie. Thaddeus Winker echoes this idea: that Bernie’s “radical policy proposals” make him too dangerous to consider, even at the risk of four more years of Donald.
Sorry to sound like a broken record (now that’s an archaic expression in the digital age), but False Dichotomy. He’s not going to destroy America, any more than Hillary would have. Presidents don’t have that kind of power. Winker even admits in the very next paragraph that Bernie “has not a single legislative accomplishment of any substance under his name” even after being in Washington “for decades.” He’s not going to turn America into Venezuela. He doesn’t have the capacity. Even if he did, you and I are not going to let him.
Winker in particular gets a lot of mileage out of The False Dichotomy, at several points indicating that because Donald hasn’t suspended the Constitution and marched the writers of Liberty Hawk in front of the firing squad, then the situation’s not so bad. “Either we’re all going to die, or everything’s fine” is a perfect example of The False Dichotomy, and it’s called a logical fallacy for a reason. There’s plenty of other choices.
No, the true danger to the country is the gradual slippage of standards, until the same below-the-belt tactics that would have been disqualifying in a more civilized age start to seem okay. That’s what corruption looks like.
A president sticking his thumb onto the scales of justice, getting preferential treatment for his cronies and himself. At the same time, directing his goons at his enemies, both to punish those who testify against him and dissuade future whistleblowers from stepping forward and doing the right thing. Constantly taking weekends off at his own properties, filling his coffers with the taxpayers’ money. And all the time coddling America’s enemies while antagonizing our allies.
None of that is acceptable to me. But it will continue until that awful man is voted out of office, along with the toadies and yes-men who now constitute the once-Grand Old Party.
You can vote your conscience for a third-party, or not vote, and see the corruption take hold for four more years. Or you can use the tools at hand to remove this stain on the White House … and substitute a temporary placeholder, until we can finally vote for somebody good.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment.
- My Thoughts on the Lesser of Two Evils Argument - April 22, 2020
- How Long Have You Believed That? - April 8, 2020
- Today’s Lesson in Logic: The Strawman Argument - April 3, 2020