Common Logical Fallacies of Modern Politics
Ramblings of the Caffeinated Student
Common Logical Fallacies of Modern Liberalism
Modern Liberalism, the ideas spread by communists, socialists, and Social Influencers, has many logical fallacies not at the fault of the individual, but at the fault of their thought system that they have created in recent years.
Appeal to Ignorance is when a statement is made that something is true because it cannot be disproven, but it cannot be proven either. This has been seen a lot in left-leaning media when discussing President Donald J. Trump (DJT). The media organizations and journalists declared that DJT is racist, not based on fact, but based on that it cannot be disproven. However, it can be disproven by DJT’s action prior, during, and post presidency, but media corporations use ad hominem attacks on the people presenting the facts to attempt to discredit the information.
The use of appeal to authority fallacies are also common these days, especially in “conversations” of SARS-COV−19. Mind you, the media’s “conversations” surrounding SARS-COV−19 are not true conversations but just declarations that certain doctors know best over every other doctor in the world. The media and even one of these doctors say that you cannot oppose them because they are the authority.
The appeal to pity has been another common logical fallacy used recently. It has been used mostly in relation to masking and vaccination as the media and activists have accused those who do neither of “killing grandma.” Despite this not being able to be proven and only preys on the emotions of the opposing party instead of offering meaningful, constructive debate.
Red Herring is probably the most used logical fallacy of modern liberalism. In lieu of debating and having a conversation, they will throw “you’re/that’s racist” and use that you do not agree with them as proof. When in actuality, disagreeing on a topic does not make you racist. The word “racist” has been thrown around so much lately that its meaning has been tarnished. Racism is the discrimination towards a race. Having a disagreement, does not directly relate to racial discrimination.
No True Scotsman is a not as well known fallacy, but extremely prominent in today’s political field, especially on the left. The idea of the No True Scotsman is that a concept or ideology is inherently pure and thus anyone who disagrees is impure, wrong, or evil. We saw this a lot in 2020 with the riots following George Floyd’s death. People, especially leftist social media influencers, declared that all cops are evil. If anyone publicly disagreed, they were declared to be evil and racist (Red Herring fallacy as well) solely because their agenda claimed to be pure and anti-racist. A very recent example of this is the “John Lewis Voting Rights” bill that congress attempted to pass. Political activists have declared that if you oppose the bill that “is to end racism and voting inequalities” that you are thus a racist or a fascist. The bill had nothing to do with race or “voting inequalities” but it was declared to be this pure idea created by congress to rid America of corruption, which no bill could ever do.
Common Logical Fallacies of Modern Conservatism
Just like in modern liberalism, many conservative figures have utilized fallacies in their teachings and actions. No ideological group is free of logical fallacies, but some have proven to be more susceptible to them.
False Cause and False Attribution is a pretty common fallacy within conservative politics. I have seen it most in relation to the problems at the southern border. I have seen the fallacy utilized as: “the administration is too lenient, this is causing the problem at the border.” While the Biden administration is more lenient, the border problems predate him and go back to the Bush presidency. The current administration may be lenient which is aggravating the problem, it is not the direct cause of the problem.
False Dilemma is another fallacy that finds its way into conservatism. This has also been called the “black and white fallacy.” False dilemma is the idea that there are only two options. It is a very black and white view on a situation. I have seen in relation to the southern border. The fallacy is that one side says, “close the border” and the other says “open it” and it is thought that these are the only two options. Thus, debate and compromise is limited because the two sides have such different perspectives and views and do not see a middle ground, a gray area.
Common Logical Fallacies Shared in Modern Politics
While both political sides have their own fallacies that they are normally drawn to, there are a few that are in common between the left and the right.
A fallacy similar to No True Scotsman, and is commonly used by political actors of any view, is Genetic. A genetic fallacy is when it is presumed that whether or not an idea is right or wrong can be determined on where it originated from. This fallacy is most commonly used when declaring that a conservative or liberal bill is wrong purely because the opposing party wrote the bill. This was seen when Trump was in office when he announced the development of COVID−19 vaccines. Political actors on the left (activists, politicians, influencers, etc) urged that people not take the “Trump vaccine” with the declaration that it is evil because Trump created Operation Warp Speed. The moment that Trump left office, the vaccine was suddenly praised and Biden was given credit for it, which shows that it was a fallacy and never based on fact.
Another shared fallacy is the fallacy fallacy, or an argument with incorrect information but is well reasoned/logical. We do not see this fallacy as much in conversation, but more in the media and with political statements. Sometimes this is purposeful, sometimes this is accidental but it creates a problem as members of the media and politicians are often more respected and held to a higher standard and thus they are more likely to be believed. This then leads to a difficulty of correcting information once one of these parties spreads incorrect information. We see this during political debates and with the media constantly.
Loaded Question is yet another shared fallacy. The loaded question fallacy is when a question is phrased in such a way that any logical answer to it makes an individual appear or sound guilty. I have seen this most in debates in Congress and in the Supreme Court. In countless of the transcripts I have read from both entities loaded question fallacies plague the debate and weaken all participating actors' reasons.
"Why did you point out all of these fallacies?"
The purpose of this is to bring to light the common fallacies that are being used to help people improve their debates and reasoning. A problem that I see these days is that these fallacies are being used so much, that proper discussion and collaboration cannot even occur in government and business because the fallacies are blinding the speakers and listeners. Both sides of the aisle are at fault of allowing logical fallacies to plague their debates, but some fallacies are more obvious than others.