The Liberty Hawk

As we deal with the difficult decisions of our time, let us abide by the rules of logic.

This is an opinion article submitted by a reader like you. As a crowdsourced platform, we value respectful debate and the free market of ideas and will consider all article submissions.

As a teenager, my favorite TV show — indeed, my favorite entertainment of any kind — was Star Trek. I watched all the episodes, memorized the trivia, even attended the conventions. I won’t say I was their biggest fan; I won’t even say it affected me more than anyone else: it’s not as if I became an astronaut or a science fiction writer. However, it did inspire in me a profound love for the science of logic. The character of Mr. Spock was more than simply an iconic figure in the lore: he was my role model. It’s no exaggeration to say that he made me the man I am today.

I’m not going to pretend that I’m an authority on logic, because I’m not. I’m not smarter than everyone else, or better read. You won’t catch me writing “Stay out of my lane” or “Don’t try this at home” when it comes to logic. That’s the great thing about rational thinking: it’s open to anyone. However, it will require that you put in the effort and do your homework. Like learning a foreign language, you have to meet it halfway. You can’t just make it up as you go along.

Recently on these pages, a discussion arose about whether a conservative could vote for a non-conservative candidate — even a socialist such as Bernie Sanders. I contend that, given the circumstances, it is possible to do so. Two other writers, namely Scott Howard and Justin Stapley, maintain that to do so would represent a violation of conscience on their part and they would reject the ‘lesser of two evils’ mentality which so many of our conservative counterparts have embraced in this ridiculous Age of Donald. I understand and respect this devotion to principle.

However, while making these assertions, they unfortunately fell into logically untenable practices. These are known as fallacies, and they completely invalidate any argument, no matter how well-intentioned. If you can’t arrive at a conclusion without engaging in such tactics, you don’t deserve to come to a conclusion at all. More importantly, you can’t expect to win converts to your cause if your pitch is faulty.

But fear not: I’m here to help. Recently I held forth on the principle of The False Dichotomy, which is misconstruing a complex situation as a mere “either/or”, and framing it as a choice between the two extremes. This is best represented by the lie we heard from both Republicans and Democrats four years ago: “It’s a binary election, either Donald or Hillary.” Those of us who voted third party in 2016 (Evan McMullin!) can recognize the fallacy of that statement, as well as anybody who could read the names “Jill Stein” and “Gary Johnson” on your ballots.

Today’s lesson is on The Strawman Argument. As with many metaphors, it’s best explained as an anecdote: imagine that you are a farm boy, being tormented by a city slicker whom, for the sake of discussion, we’ll call Donny. Donny is a rich boy with all the right friends, and he makes your life on the farm a daily hell. Unfortunately for you, his powerful friends and daddy’s money prevent you from defending yourself, or even speaking back, and the daily abuse is taking its toll.

So one day, you go out to one of the fields where no one can see you. The field is protected by a scarecrow, which you now christen as “Donny”. You tell “Donny” exactly what you think of him. You slap, punch and kick “Donny”, and knock him from his perch. You beat the stuffing out of “Donny”.

This may make you feel better (at least until the farmer sees what you did to his scarecrow), but your victory will be hollow. You didn’t actually defeat Donny; you defeated a straw man named “Donny”.

So it is with the Strawman Argument. Here you reframe your opponent’s actual opinion as one that is easier to refute. You then refute not the actual argument, but your fictional version of it, leaving the opponent’s actual argument untouched. Here are a few real-life examples (I’m ashamed to tell you whose life they were taken from):

Mom: Don’t forget to take out the garbage.
Me: I have to do everything around here!
Mom: … No, but you do have to take out the garbage.

and

My First Date: No, I don’t want to kiss you.
Me As a Teenager: Why do you hate me?
My First Date: … I liked you a lot more before you said that.

Like the false dichotomy, the Strawman is a common feature of political discussion in America. What conservative, after explaining that Al Gore is not the authority on the climate he pretends to be, hasn’t been called “anti-science” or a “climate change denier”? As a matter of fact, I’m perfectly willing to admit that the climate is changing, and that humans play a role. I merely want to discuss the scientific facts, and decide the best course of action. However, that’s not in the best interest of those pushing their environmental agenda. It’s much easier for them to misconstrue my objections, and call me names.

And again, this logical fallacy isn’t limited to one party. In our discussion about whether a conservative could vote for Bernie Sanders, Scott Howard also constructed a convenient Strawman:

“Richard declares that, even if Democrats nominate someone horrendous, he will vote for that horror, because anything is better than Trump. He states that this is the long view of conservatism.”

In fact, I declared no such thing. To briefly summarize the main assertion from my article “Never Say Never Bernie”, I believe that America can’t have a conservative party worthy of the name as long as the GOP serves at Donald’s pleasure. I want the party of Donald to suffer a devastating defeat at the ballot box, so that four years later, after a thorough housecleaning, a genuine conservative may be able to take the White House back. For obvious reasons, that will mean temporarily letting the Democrat win, even if it’s Bernie Sanders. I never said Bernie would be better than Donald. I advocate voting for Bernie merely because he’s NOT Donald. That’s the only plausible path to a future with a viable conservative party again.

Somehow, Scott was able to agree with every one of my points except the conclusion. That’s an odd tactic: “I reject your hypothesis, even though all your arguments for it are valid.” Scott later repeats his Strawman, and caps it off with yet another fallacy:

“Richard argues that the best way to beat Trumpism is to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, come November. This I cannot do, and this is something no conservative serious about preserving his principles can bring himself to do.” This second sentence constitutes the fallacy known as No True Scotsman, and it will have to wait for a future essay for me to unpack it. For now, please just look it up.

Later, Scott writes “All conservatives can agree that Trump is horrible for the movement [but] that does not mean that voting for Bernie Sanders would be any better,” and “Why should we throw away [our] principles for a man who stands counter to everything we hold dear?” More Strawmen. I never assert that Bernie is better, and I never advocate throwing away our principles. Four years of fighting against Bernie’s socialist agenda will be an excellent platform for rebuilding the conservative movement. I have no such hopes for the party following eight years of Donald.

Both Scott and Justin rely to a great extent on the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument, which is entirely virtuous and also deserving of an article in its own right. Justin in particular invokes it to construct another Strawman: “If I was going to engage in voting for the lesser-of-two-evils, I would have done so in 2016 and voted for Donald Trump. Yet [Richard] is saying that because I’m attempting to be intellectually consistent and placing the same expectation on a Democrat in 2020 as I did on a Republican in 2016 … that I would be allowing Trump’s corruption to continue.” Again, this is a Strawman. I’m not asking anyone to vote for evil, either lesser or greater. You must vote as your conscience dictates. However, I assert that, as repugnant as these two candidates are, only one offers a path to a future with a viable conservative party. If that path requires me to vote for a socialist like Sanders, and then oppose his agenda for four years until we can vote him out, then that’s what I’m prepared to do.

Justin at several points even accuses me of employing a false dichotomy myself, writing that “[Richard] proceeds to make the argument, essentially, that Donald Trump is an existential threat to America.” Not true. I never, neither explicitly, implicitly, nor by omission, have claimed that Donald is a threat to America’s very existence.
Just that he is bad. He’s a bad man. He’s corrupt, vile, vulgar, and the longer he stays in office, the further he drags the political party he stole from me down to his level. This is a stain on American history that will never wash out.

Make no mistake: he is survivable. We’ve been through worse challenges — two world wars, the Red Scare and yellow fever — and will again. The country will still be here regardless of who wins elections. Every day Donald remains in power, however, I find it that much harder to be proud of that country.

Justin also makes extensive use of the term “cognitive dissonance”, which, of course, is a real thing. It’s a psychological condition in which individuals act in ways that contradict their beliefs, then change their beliefs to align with their actions. One example of this phenomenon is all the evangelicals and other religious people who told themselves, “I would never vote for an evil man, but I voted for Donald. Therefore, Donald is not evil, notwithstanding all the evil things he does.” An even better example is “Only stupid people get fooled by conmen, and I’m not stupid. Therefore, Donald is not a conman.”

However, Justin mischaracterizes the idea of cognitive dissonance, at one point defining it as “making two different arguments at the same time.” He contrasts our mutual decision to vote for Evan McMullin in 2016 (a vote I continue to be proud of) with my decision to remove Donald by any votes necessary in 2020, calling it an example of cognitive dissonance.

It’s not. At worst, one could frame it as inconsistency. I prefer to think of it as changing my mind. The economist Paul Samuelson once said “When events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” I admit that four years ago I voted third party because I very reasonably believed that the country would not be so misguided as to elect a charlatan like Donald. I fully expected to spend four years fighting Hillary’s agenda, during which time we conservatives would learn from the mistakes of the Donald Experiment, get our house in order, and then in 2020 nominate someone good. I was wrong, obviously. In my defense, I can say that I was wrong for all the right reasons.

To be fair, Justin did point out one statement in my essay that could qualify as a false dichotomy. I wrote that, in the current election, “[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.” Of course those are not the only three options (THREE, which means it’s not a true dichotomy! Is “trichotomy” a word?) For example, it’s entirely possible that, even after I persuade Scott and Justin to vote for Bernie, he loses anyway. Alternatively, it’s possible that all three of us vote third party, but Bernie wins anyway. Who knows, Evan McMullin could run again, and win. I prefer to think of my statement as forgivable political hyperbole.

With the developments in the race during the time it took me to write this, the question of whether we will even have the option of voting for Bernie in November may well have become moot. My point remains: this election has far further-reaching consequences than merely who will occupy the Resolute desk for the next four years. No, it will determine whether we still have a conservative party in America worth our votes in 2024. I think that’s a goal worth fighting for, and I’m not willing to kick that can down the road by risking another four years of the Orange Fool.

This is a debate I’m happy to have with my fellow conservatives. Just please, abide by the rules of logic. If you’re going to play the game, play it right.

I was just kidding about writing another essay on the No True Scotsman Fallacy, but I do feel a dissertation coming on concerning the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument. Look for that one soon.

Do you agree with this article? Do you disagree? Give us your perspective on this topic, or any other topic, by submitting your own article or offering a comment below.