A Philosopher's Blog

Tearing Down

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on August 5, 2016

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Politics has always been a nasty business, but the fact that examples of historic awfulness can be easily found does not excuse the current viciousness. After all, appealing to tradition (reasoning that something is acceptable because it has been done a long time) and appealing to common practice (reasoning that something being commonly done makes it acceptable) are both fallacies.

One manifestation of the nastiness of politics is when it does not suffice to merely regard an opponent as wrong, they must be torn down and cast as morally wicked. To be fair, there are cases in which people really are both wrong and morally wicked. As such, my concern is with cases in which the tearing down is not warranted.

I certainly understand the psychological appeal of this approach. It is natural to regard opponents as holding on to their views because they are bad people—in contrast to the moral purity that grounds one’s own important beliefs. In some cases, there is a real conflict between good and evil. For example, those who oppose slavery are morally better than those who practice the enslavement of their fellow human beings. However, most political disputes are disagreements in which all sides are a blend of right and wrong—both factually and morally. For example, the various views about the proper size of government tend to be blended in this way. Unfortunately, political ideology can become part of a person’s core identity—thus making any differing view appear as a vicious assault on the person themselves. A challenge to their very identity that could only come from the vilest of knaves. Politicians and pundits also intentionally stoke these fires, hoping to exploit irrationality and ungrounded righteous rage to ensure their election and to get their way.

While academic philosophy is not a bastion of pure objective rationality, one of the most important lessons I have learned in my career is that a person can disagree with me about an important issue, yet still be a fine human being. Or, at the very least, not a bad person. In some cases, this is easy to do because I do not have a strong commitment to my position. For example, while I do not buy into Plato’s theory of forms, I have no real emotional investment in opposing it. In other cases, such as moral disputes, it is rather more difficult. Even in cases in which I have very strong commitments, I have learned to pause and consider the merits of my opponent’s position while also taking care to distinguish the philosophical position taken from the person who takes it. I also take care to regard their criticisms of my view as being against my view and not against me as a person. This allows me to debate the issue without it becoming a personal matter that threatens my core identity. It also helps that I know that simply attacking the person making a claim is just some form of an ad hominem fallacy.

It might be objected that this sort of approach to disputes is bloodless and unmanly—that one should engage with passion and perhaps, as Trump would say, want to hit someone. The easy reply is that while there is a time and a place for punching, the point of a dispute over an issue is to resolve it in a rational manner. A person can also be passionate without being uncivil and vicious. Unfortunately, vicious attacks are part of the political toolkit.

One recent and reprehensible example involves the attacks on Ghazala and Khizr Khan, the parents of Captain HumayunKhan (who was killed in Iraq in 2004). Khizr Khan spoke out against Donald Trump’s anti Muslim rhetoric and asserted that Trump did not understand the Constitution. While Trump had every right to address the criticisms raised against him, he took his usual approach of trying to tear down a critic. Trump’s engagement with the family led to bipartisan responses, including an extensive response from John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner during the Vietnam War. Trump, against the rules of basic decency, continued to launch attacks on Khan.

Since I have a diverse group of friends, I was not surprised when I saw posts appearing on Facebook attacking Khan. One set of posts linked to Shoebat.com’s claim that Khan “is a Muslim brotherhood agent who wants to advance sharia law and bring Muslims into the United States.” As should come as no surprise, Snopes quickly debunked this claim.

Breitbart.com also leaped into the fray asserting that Khan “financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.” The site also claimed that Khan had deleted his law firm’s website. On the one hand, it is certainly legitimate journalism to investigate speakers at the national convention. After all, undue bias legitimately damages credibility and it is certainly good to know about any relevant misdeeds lurking in a person’s past. On the other hand, endeavoring to tear a person down and thus “refute” their criticism is simply an exercise in the ad hominem fallacy. This is bad reasoning in which an attack on a person is taken to thus refute their claims. Even if Khan ran a “pay to play” system and even if he backed Sharia law, his criticisms of Donald Trump stand or fall on their own merits—and they clearly have merit.  There is also the moral awfulness in trying to tear down a Gold Star family. As many have pointed out, such an attack would normally be beyond the pale. Trump, however, operates far beyond this territory. What is one of the worst aspects of this is that although he draws criticism even from the Republican leadership, his support remains strong. He is, perhaps, changing the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a way that might endure beyond his campaign—a change for the worse.

It might be objected that a politician must reply to critics, otherwise the attacks will stand. While this is a reasonable point, the reply made matters. It is one thing to respond to the criticisms by countering their content, quite another to launch a personal attack against a Gold Star family.

It could also be objected that engaging in a rational discussion of the actual issues is too difficult and would not be understood by the public. They can only handle emotional appeals and simplistic notions. Moral distinctions are irrelevant and decency is obsolete. Hence, the public discourse must be conducted at a low level—Trump gets this and is acting accordingly. My only reply is that I hope, but cannot prove, that this is not the case.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. TJB said, on August 5, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Let’s not forget that Khan used his son’s death to advance a political cause. He even sided with the person who voted in favor of the war. It is also likely that if Hillary becomes president she will probably kill more Muslims than would Trump, who seems to be more of an isolationist.

    What happened was that Trump was baited, and he could not stop himself from counterattacking. The lack of discipline has hurt him. He is not looking competent.

  2. ajmacdonaldjr said, on August 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    • david halbstein said, on August 5, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      TLDNR

  3. david halbstein said, on August 6, 2016 at 8:03 am

    This issue is not about Donald Trump, it’s not about the Khans, it’s not about any of the real issues we are facing in this country.

    This issue is about political theater, and a disgraceful strategy that politicians often try to play. This time it was the Democrats, and they are very, very good at it.

    Think about this issue from the point of view of a political strategist. What was the purpose of putting the Khans up on the stage? It was to add a strong emotional impact to a common narrative about a candidate. “Trump is a bigot”. “Trump is unqualified”. “Trump disparages Muslims, women, and other minorities”.

    How else could they get that message out at the convention? Hillary certainly couldn’t say it. Nor could Kaine, or any of the other dignitaries up there. No stakeholder in this election would be willing to risk the blowback for participating in the mudslinging.

    The selection of the Khans to make that point was perfect. They are untouchable – they have suffered the ultimate tragedy, and are insulated against any criticism for allowing themselves and their suffering to be used to score political points. It is a win-win situation.

    With any “normal” candidate, the statements could have been made and left on the table to ferment, garnering no response. That in itself is a win – like trotting out a family whose health had been saved by Obamacare, or another who had lost their job and were on food stamps because of some political issue or another. To level any criticism at a victim like that is to open yourself up to a flood of criticism yourself, and politicians all know it. That’s why they do it.

    Trump misplayed the hand. He could not let that narrative alone, and what he said was, in his mind (and probably in a lot of other minds had it not been Trump), played down and relatively innocuous. He doesn’t understand how this game is played, and he fell right into the trap, which is what the DNC wanted all along. They do not care about the Khans themselves, only in the opportunity they represent for scoring big politically.

    Well played, DNC. Either you continue the narrative that Trump is a bigot, a racist and a Constitutional tyro without fear of reprisal, or you launch a media frenzy. Win, win.

    They counted on Trump and he came through. They counted on the emotional impact of the issue and the cooperation of the press, and they counted on the spineless Republican powers that be to run for the hills and position themselves for their own safety instead of taking the risk to redirect the narrative to where it really should be – on Islamic Terrorism. No one has, in this entire frenzy, acknowledged that Islamic terrorism is a real international threat and a problem for which we have not found a solution.

    The correct answer here is what Trump tried and failed to say. “What the Khans suffered is an unspeakable tragedy. Their son is a hero, there is no doubt about that. The way in which their son so valiantly served this country is admirable, and he deserves our respect and all the honor we can bestow upon him. But the fact that a Muslim can serve and die for this country does in no way mitigate the threat that we face from extreme factions who also call themselves Muslims – those who have infiltrated this country and other Western countries under student or work visas, who disguise themselves as refugees, who come here legally AND illegally, who seek to kill and maim and destroy us. And we do not know who they are.

    The Khans had a perfect opportunity to use the stage they had been given to denounce radical Islam on behalf of all the families who are loyal to this country, to unite all Americans, and especially the Muslims who, like themselves, desire peace against the radical factions that are disparaging their religion all over the world, to call out to the Muslim community to take a stand against these killers and to demonstrate that they can be of great help in stopping terrorism – but that was not on the script. The DNC needed very specific words to be spoken, and the Khans innocently complied.

    The ones who should be torn down in this case are the DNC, who chose to exploit the tragedy of the Khans. It is doubtful that the Khans knew that this would spark such a maelstrom – but the Democrats most certainly did, and they are no doubt licking their chops, reveling in the deliciousness of it all.

    I find it despicable.

  4. TJB said, on August 6, 2016 at 11:01 am

    The Khans are like the human shields the Palestinians use when they launch attacks on Israel from hospitals, etc.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: