A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Critical Thinking/Logic

Connotation Theft

by 3 Comments

Image Credit

The denotation of a word is what it literally means. The connotation is the emotional loading of the word, which can be negative or positive—how the word makes you feel. To illustrate, “swarm” and “infestation” have very strong negative connotations. Whether the connotation is negative or positive depends on many factors, including how the audience feels about the word. For example, the connotation of “socialism” can vary greatly between people. Two words can have the same denotation, but very different connotations. For example, the slang term “pig” and the word “police” have the same denotation, but very different connotations. As would be expected, rhetoric generally makes use of the influence of connotation in order to affect how people feel.

Words that have strong connotations can be very powerful rhetorical tools. As with any powerful tool, people will want to use it—even if they must steal it. Hence, connotation theft.  A word can derive its connotation from a variety of factors, such as historical context, and this is how the connotation is earned. If the word is then knowingly used for that connotation in a manner inconsistent with those factors, then the connotation has been stolen. This can also involve intentionally ignoring a word’s denotation in order to use its connotation.  A person can also unintentionally steal connotation by being unaware that their use is inconsistent with the factors, such as the historical context or denotation, that give the word the connotation in question.

Put into a template, connotation theft looks like this:

1. Word W has connotation C because of P,Q and R.

2. Word W is used in situation S because it has connotation C.

3. But S is inconsistent with P, Q, R.

A good example for the discussion to follow is the word “fascism.” The word has a strong negative connotation primarily because of the Nazis and their numerous crimes. To a far lesser extent, fascist Italy and Spain also contributed to this negative connotation. Because of the strong negative connotation of “fascism” calling something “fascism” or associating it with fascism can be an effective rhetorical tactic. That is, it can generate negative feelings towards the thing in question and these can influence what people think. Because of this, it is not surprising that the term is often used in American politics. George W. Bush’s administration was called fascist. Bush in turn used the term “Islamofascism” (which is distinct from Islamic fascism) in an effort to create negative feelings. Obama was called a fascist and, of course, Trump is being called a fascist now. Interestingly, the left is now being called fascist and some claim that the Nazis were leftists (mainly because of the “socialism” in their name). One might thus agree with a quote attributed to George Orwell, that “[T]he word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” This, it could be argued, arose from connotation theft: using the word for its negative connotation while ignoring its denotation and historical context served to split them apart.

Orwell’s assertion shows one of the problems with connotation theft: it can rob a word of its denotation and historical context, making it a mere rhetorical tool to be used as desired. Another problem is that connotation theft is a deceit—the emotional power of the word is exploited by intentionally misapplying the word. For example, some on the right assert that the left in general and the socialists in particular are fascists. Since most people feel that fascism is bad, those that accept this assertion will feel that the left is bad. The problem is that this is a deceit. First, while the National Socialists used the word “socialist”, they were neither socialists nor leftists. Fascism is, in fact, a reaction to and an opponent of the left. Second, the negative connotation of “fascism” does not arise from whatever socialist style programs or policies the Nazis or other fascists might have implemented. It arises from the specifically fascist parts of fascism and the Nazi’s multitude of crimes aimed at creating a white German nation. As such, applying the term “fascist” to the left is an attempt at connotation theft or an act of ignorance. This is most certainly not to claim that the left is without sin, simply that fascism is a sin of the right rather than the left.

The main defense against being deceived by connotation theft is to be aware of the factors that give a word its emotional power, such as its proper denotation and historical context. For example, when someone or some group is seriously accused of being fascist, one should consider carefully if the word truly applies or, as Orwell said, the word is just signifying something the speaker finds undesirable and hopes you will too.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Carter Page & False Motivations

by 27 Comments

Image Credit

Carter Page recently made headlines when it was determined that while the FBI investigation into his involvement with Russia was warranted, the FBI’s application to the FISA court was severely flawed. The Republicans are trying to blame this on the Democrats and are suddenly very concerned about the FISA court and civil liberties. However, this does not seem to be the Democrats doing; rather it is a long-term problem with the FISA court that civil liberties advocates have been warning America about since its inception. Before the Carter Page episode, the Republicans actively defended FISA and it was the ACLU that was concerned about this court, bringing an unsuccessful lawsuit in 2012.

To infer that the Republicans are wrong now because they previously defended FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics would be to fall into an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. In one version of this fallacy, it is concluded that what a person claims now is false because they previously claimed the opposite. While both claims (the current and the past) cannot be true at the same time, this does not show which one is false (and both might be false).

I hold that the Republicans and the ACLU are both right—there are problems with FISA. The Republicans and long-time liberal critics of the FBI and police are also right—there are problems with the FBI. As such, my issue with the Republicans is not that they are in error—I agree that the case of Carter Page was handled badly. My issue with the Republicans is that they are professing false motivations.

False motivation is a rhetorical tactic in which a person professes a laudable and credible motive for taking an action or holding a belief when this is not their real motive. This tactic is used to cast the person in a good light and to persuade others to accept their claim or actions. The idea is that if they convince others they are acting from a laudable and credible motive, then they will also persuade them they are doing right for the right reasons. The problem is, of course, that the professed motive is not the real motive. As such, they do not deserve any praise for acting from a laudable or credible motive and any persuasive power derived from claiming such a motive is thus earned by deceit.

It is important to note that a person’s motives do not affect the truth of a claim or the rightness of their action (or the morality of its consequences). For example, sugar companies have a strong profit motive to lie about negative effects of sugar, but this motive does not prove that their claims about sugar are not true. As another example, a person might give money to a charity to improve their reputation for an upcoming political campaign; but this does not make the act of giving the money or its consequences bad.

The Republicans are obviously not going to say that they are only concerned because they want to protect Trump and score political points by going after FISA and the FBI.  While the Republicans profess that their concern with FISA and the FBI arise from concerns about constitutional rights and justice, the facts of the matter say otherwise.

As noted above, Republicans have consistently defended FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics and the ACLU. See, for example, the conservative view of Black Lives Matter. The Republican view suddenly changed when they learned what happened to Carter Page and realized they had been handed a chance to score political points. All the previous problems with FISA and law enforcement largely did not concern the Republicans—presumably because these problems involved people they did not like, mostly minorities. If the Republicans were motivated by a general concern about constitutional rights and justice, then they would have been on board with the ACLU lawsuit—the ACLU is consistently motivated by these concerns. Instead, the Republicans only discovered a concern for FISA and law enforcement when Carter Page (and others in the Trump orbit) have become the subject of investigations.

I want to stress again, that the Republicans are right that Carter Page was wronged and that FISA and law enforcement need to be reformed. Their motivations are irrelevant to the truth of their claims. However, their motivations are relevant to assessing their ethics and in assessing their rhetorical strategy. If they, like the ACLU, were champions of constitutional rights, then they would be worthy of praise. But they are clearly operating from different motives and only deserve whatever faint praise one earns by finally doing some small right from selfish motives.

It could be argued that Carter Page was the come to Jesus moment for the Republicans; that they had been staunchly defending FISA and law enforcement against liberal critics and the cruel oppression of a rich, white man finally made the scales fall from their eyes. They should, of course, be given a fair evaluation here. If this is the case, then one would expect them to play out the tale of Saul becoming Paul: they should change their ways and broadly defend constitutional rights and engage in constructive, but stern, criticism of abuses by law enforcement. If this happens, then I will admit that their professed motives are their real motives. If their concern begins and ends with rich, white guys (associated with Trump) then their true motives will be evident.

It could also be claimed that the Republicans are rationalizing. Rationalizing does have some similarity to the false motive strategy, but there is an important difference. When someone uses the false motive tactic, they are aware of their real motive and a lying when they profess a laudable or credible motive in its place. When someone rationalizes, they also present a laudable or credible motive in place of their real motive, but they are not only trying to deceive others—they are also striving to deceive themselves. If they succeed, it could be claimed that they are no longer lying—they are saying what they believe to be true. As such, rationalization might be seen as morally superior to the use of false motive; or perhaps it is worse, since it involves lying to one more person (themselves).

Since we can only discern motives from words and deeds, it can be hard to sort out when someone is engaged in a false motive tactic, rationalizing or telling the truth. However, we can try to sort things out. As noted above, if the Republicans profess, they are motivated by a concern for constitutional rights and justice, then this can be tested by observing how they act in other cases. If they are not consistent, then it is worth considering that they are engaged in using the false motivation method. It is also worth noting that people often fail to act consistently on their principles—so one can be sincere but flawed. If they seem to be struggling to convince themselves as well, then rationalization could be a possibility.

My view is, of course, that the Republicans generally do not care about the broader issues raised by the Carter Page case in terms of constitutional rights and problems with law enforcement. Their real motive, which can be assessed by their actions, seems to be to score political points and protect Trump. If they did, in fact, come to Jesus, then I will happily accept that they have had a Grinch like experience and their hearts have grown. In fact, I promise to write essays praising them should they engage in broad reforms of the courts and law enforcement that go beyond merely protecting Page, Trump and other rich white guys.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Demonizing I: Demonizing

by 3 Comments

Image Credit

Many of Trump’s defenders have tried to demonize key witnesses in the impeachment hearings.  Demonizing is a rhetorical strategy that aims at casting the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening. Demonizing can also be used to fuel or intensify other fallacies. My aim is to provide a discussion of demonizing to help people recognize and, I hope, exorcise it.

By its very nature demonization is a deceitful strategy—one does not need to demonize those who are evil. The level of deception used to demonize does vary considerably. The least dishonest approach is selective demonizing. This method involves making true negative claims but is a dishonest strategy because it involves cherry picking negative aspects of a person or group and emphasizing them without context. For example, if a person is killed by the police those trying to defend the officer might assert that the person “was no angel” and focus intently on, for example, the fact they were once arrested for possession of marijuana. As another example, those trying to demonize a corporation might focus on one bad thing the company did. Selective demonizing grants its user the advantage of being able to claim that what they are saying is true—although they are engaged in deception by omission.

The problem with selective demonizing is that it ignores the full story of the person or group in favor of focusing on the negative, which is unfair. To use an analogy, it would be like a teacher selecting only your worst grades to determine your grade in a course. It is certainly fair to consider the negative aspects of a person or group, but they must be taken in context. The defense against selective demonizing is to consider the broader context.

Hyperbolic demonization involves a greater level of deceit than selective demonization, but still has some connection to truth. This is because it involves hyperbole, which is an extravagant overstatement or exaggeration. Hyperbole differs from an outright lie in that it does have a foundation in truth—but the house built on that foundation is a lie. This allows those using it to claim that what they are saying has some basis in fact. The problem is, obviously, that what they are saying is not true. For example, a person trying to demonize migrants might take the true claim that some migrants commit crimes and explode that into a hyperbolic demonization about how masses of migrants are coming to the United States to rape and murder. The defense against hyperbolic demonization is to learn the facts and resist being manipulated by the exaggeration.

Fictional demonization involves simply making up negative claims about a person or group. This is sometimes done more subtly with innuendo (a rhetorical device in which one suggests or implies something deprecatory) or by using a weasler (a rhetorical device in which one protects a claim by weakening it). For example, defenders of Trump tried to suggest that Lieutenant Colonel might be disloyal to the United States—perhaps even a spy or traitor. In other cases, the demonizing involves directly making false extreme negative claims about a person or group. For example, someone might demonize minorities by claiming that they are engaged in a white genocide.  The defense against fictional demonization is being critical of claims and only accepting them when they are backed by credible evidence—especially in cases involving strong emotional appeals.

While demonization is psychological effective, it has no logical weight. Also, by definition, it involves deception: selected truths, exaggeration or outright lies. As such, it is wise to be wary of demonization.  There is also the moral concern that demonization is typically employed in the service of evil ends. After all, the good do not need to demonize the evil. In the upcoming essays I will look at some fallacies associated with demonization.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Two Sides Problems: Impeachment Defense

by 15 Comments

As this is being written, Nancy Pelosi is leading the House Democrats down the path to impeaching president Trump. The Republicans have rushed or reluctantly shuffled to defend him. There are two main focuses for their defense: substance and process.

The substance defense is (or was) a rolling defense. The first line was to deny anything had happened, which ceased to be an option when the text of the call was released, and officials started admitting the facts in public. The second line is to deny that there was anything wrong with what was done. This defense has proven problematic, so the focus has been on the process defense.

The process defense, obviously enough, involves attacking the process used by the Democrats in the house. One argument is that the process is unconstitutional and unlawful and hence Trump should not be impeached. The obvious flaw with this argument is that impeachment is constitutional and lawful as per Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The constitution also specifies that the House has the sole power to impeach. Since this defense is directly contradicted by readily accessible facts, any power it has must be psychological—people will feel that it is good because it is a defense made by their side. Naturally, to think that it is defective because it is made by the other side would be an error—though the argument is defective.

Another defense is to attack the specifics of the process followed by the Democrats. Some of these are attempts to apply the standards of a criminal trial (facing the accuser and so on) to the impeachment process. This might be part of a intentional strategy to confuse the public (impeachment is not a criminal trial conducted by the judiciary and does not follow the same rules) or simple ignorance about how the process works. This sort of defense has no merit and draws all its influence from psychology.

In the current episode, the Democrats face the impossible task of crafting rules that the Republicans will accept—for there are no such rules (unless they guarantee that Trump is not impeached). As such, the Republicans can always complain that the process is unfair, because their position seems to be that any process would be unfair. This is not based in good reasons, but a matter of wanting their side to win.

Another defense has been to use ad hominem attacks. The main talking point seems, bizarrely enough, to accuse the Democrats of using a “Soviet-Style impeachment process.” This attack took me back to my younger days, when the Soviet Union existed and Russia was seen as an enemy. The fact that the Soviet Union does not exist does not undermine the “argument”, but the power of this attack is psychological. After all, the Soviets did not remove leaders through an impeachment process. This could also be taken as drawing an analogy between how the Soviet Union was run and the way the Democrats are acting—but this analogy breaks down rapidly. Those using this analogy do not carefully go through the points of similarity and offer arguments as to why these are bad, they merely offer an ad hominem comparison. It is also odd for the Republicans to bring up the Soviet Union so much, given the Russian issues faced by Trump.

It is certainly reasonable for Trump’s defenders to argue that there are unfair, immoral or problematic aspects to the process—but these need to be grounded in facts rather than mere rhetoric or factual errors (or lies). There is a general problem with trying to argue about the process—it is not specified in the constitution. When Bill Clinton was impeached, the Republicans created the process (and the Democrats complained—since their side was under attack). The Republicans were obviously fine with that approach when they were on the side trying to impeach the president. What has changed is, of course, that they are now playing defense. A seemingly sensible solution would be for congress to work out a set of rules when there is not an impeachment in progress and to agree to follow them the next time an impeachment arises. This is unlikely, since each side wants to craft the rules to its advantage the next time it happens. So when the Republicans try to impeach a Democrat, I will most likely be able to reuse most of this essay.  

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Two Sides Problems: Heroes & Villains

by 12 Comments

After the White House released a damning transcript of Trump’s conversation with the leader of Ukraine and Trump and his fellows essentially confessed on television to their misdeeds, Trump’s defenders continue to rally around him. A key part of his early defense was claiming the whistle blower did not directly hear the conversation, therefore their assertions are but hearsay. This defense has been torpedoed as first-hand witnesses have begun testifying. One of these is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Image Credit

Given what the transcript already reveals, it is hardly surprising that Vindman’s testimony would be damaging to Trump. In response, Trump’s defenders have rushed to discredit Vindman. Addressing the credibility of a witness is a legitimate tactic, provided that the assessment is on relevant grounds. These include such factors as the witness’ knowledge and objectivity. In the case of Vindman, his expertise is not in question, so the focus is on his objectivity.  

It is at this point that a Two Sides Problem arises. Trump’s defenders are one side, his foes on the other side. In this situation, the manifestation of the problem is that Trump’s side is concerned with winning; that is defending Trump regardless of what he has done. These defenders will certainly paint their opponents with the same brush, seeing them as concerned only with defeating Trump by any means necessary.

When people focus solely on winning, they are not following on any principle beyond victory for their side. Because of this, they are often willing to use whatever means will help them achieve this goal. Considerations of truth, morality, and justice often seem to have no weight. People caught up in this Two Sides situation also accept claims offered by their side and reject those presented by the other side simply because of their origin rather than their merit.

 Naturally, a utilitarian moral argument could be used to try to justify this approach—the good generated by the Trump presidency warrants all means to keep him in office. Or the evil generated by the Trump presidency warrants any means to remove him from office.

It is worth noting that to simply assume that because there are two sides that both must automatically fall into this Two Sides trap would be an error. People can resist the psychological and pragmatic appeal of sticking to their side in the face of the truth and goodness. Also, it would be an error to infer that because there are two sides with a stake in the matter, that they must be equally bad or in error. One side can be better, although both could be bad.

In this case, Trump’s defenders seem to be the worse side—the facts, law and morality are against them. Naturally, a clever Trump defender will assert that I must be a victim of the Two Sides problem and infer that I am therefore wrong. This logic would look like this:

Premise 1. Person A says X.

Premise 2. Person A is on the other side (not mine).

Conclusion: X is false.

This is simply a variant of an ad hominem and thus a fallacy. What would be needed is more than pointing out I am on the non-Trump side; evidence is needed to show that I am wrong.

As would be expected in a Two Sides situation like this, there has been a concerted effort to try to demonize those who are testifying.  Trump’s Defenders been advancing the narrative that Vindman might have been secretly working for Ukrainian interests at the expense of the United States. One piece of “evidence” being offered is the assertion that Vindman is from Ukraine and this is supposed to affect his loyalty. The historical fact is that Vindman’s family was forced to flee the Soviet Union, which seems an unlikely basis for an alleged loyalty to Ukraine. This accusation of dual loyalty is also especially insulting because Vindman is Jewish and this is a stock tool of anti-Semitism. They are trying to cast Vindman as a villain. Those who disagree with Trump, while right to defend Vindman using good methods need to beware of falling into the hero trap—believing that someone who advances your side must thus be right and good. This does not follow and is a positive ad hominem fallacy.

Trump’s defenders have been working this talking point asserting that Vindman has an “affinity for the Ukraine.” Sean Duffy presented this in a rather odd argument. Duffy tried to smear Vindman by asserting that he had an affinity for Ukraine and hence would put the defense of Ukraine ahead of the defense of the United States. When challenged on this point, Duffy referenced his own Irish heritage and asserted that he had an affinity for Ireland. Interviewer John Berman drew the obvious inference from what Duffy said, inquiring if he would pick Irish defense over U.S. defense.

While Duffy is correct that many Americans with foreign heritage have an affinity for these countries, it is quite a leap from that to the notion that most would prioritize these countries over the United States. If Duffy were right that Americans with foreign heritage (which would include Trump’s wife and children) should be regarded as likely traitors, then it would follow that nearly all Americans are likely to be traitors. To his credit, Duffy seemed to be making that very point about himself.

Accepting that America is a nation of traitors seems to be a high price to pay to discredit Vindman. But when victory for one’s side is all that matters, there seem to be few limits on the means employed. Fortunately, Duffy is relying on an inductive generalization from a sample of one (himself) to make this point. Since the strength of an inductive generalization depends on the size and representativeness of the sample, Duffy’s argument here is extremely weak. Even if he harbors treasonous thoughts in favor of Ireland over the United States, it hardly follows that others do.

Duffy could also be seen as making an argument by analogy. He seemed to be asserting that he would pick Ireland over the United States because of his Irish heritage and inferring from this that Vindman would do the same for his country of origin. Being an argument by analogy, this would be assessed in terms of the similarity between the two men. Vindman is a Lieutenant Colonel who received a Purple Heart in combat and has served his country well. Duffy’s claim to fame is his time served on MTV’s The Real World and Real World/Road Rules Challenge. As such, the two men are not that alike, and it would be a poor argument to draw an inference about Vindman’s loyalty to America from Duffy’s apparent profession of a lack of loyalty.

It must be noted that it is legitimate to consider the objectivity of a witness. If there was actual evidence that Vindman was biased or had dual loyalty, then this would undermine his credibility. But the attacks against him simply assert that because he has a foreign origin, he must be biased or have a dual loyalty. As noted above, this attack would discredit almost all Americans if it worked. As such, until evidence that specifically shows that Vindman is biased or has dual loyalty, then these attacks are baseless.

These attacks against Vindman show how those trapped in the Two Sides Problem can quickly cast those they present as heroes as villains whenever the need suits them—that is, when they believe doing so will help their side win. Republicans and Trump are happy to exploit the troops and rush to use them for political purposes (such as in Trump’s attacks on Colin Kaepernick), but when a soldier shows true patriotism by doing what is right and putting country over Trump, then Trump and many Republicans rush to cast him as a villain.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Two Sides Problem: Erosion of Norms

by 5 Comments

Image Credit

Humans have a natural tendency to divide each other into “us” and “them”, which provides the foundation for the two sides problems. If one side has a power advantage over the other and elects not to be overly constrained by law or morality, this can be very bad for the weaker side. Paradigm examples include American slave owners and their slaves, Nazis and their victims, and Stalinists and their victims.  If the two sides are roughly equal in power and are willing to abide by certain limits, this division can provide benefits to both—or at least to the elites of each group.

When people are divided into us and them, the usual course is for the us group to see itself as good and superior to the them group. This helps cement group identity and serves various psychological needs. In times of identity stress or fear, people in the us group quickly accept the demonization of the them group.

The American political system is a Two Sides system of the more equal sort and one of increasing demonization. While the Republicans have gained the upper hand in many states through being better at gerrymandering and voter suppression than the Democrats, the two parties are still roughly on par. While this does have some negative consequences for the party elites, it also confers many important advantages. On the minus side, a politician from one party is unlikely to win over voters from the other party, unless they can create another us-them paradigm. This is something Trump managed to do. While doing this initially caused some splits in the Republican party, most Republicans quickly accepted the situation and Trump’s embrace. As such, almost all Republicans are on Trump’s side. On the positive side, the us-them situation means that the party elite can use the various cognitive biases, rhetorical devices and fallacies that are fueled by the Two Sides Problems. Another advantage is that the party elite can expect that their misdeeds will often be defended by fellow party members—even when these misdeeds are a clear violation of professed principles. This is because group identity and political advantage are accepted as more important than almost any professed principle—although some people do have limits even within the upper reaches of the parties.

One unfortunate consequence of this aspect of the Two Sides Problems is that an American elite can commit misdeeds that damage the norms of the country and still count on their fellows to defend them. One excellent example of this occurred when NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro interviewed Indiana Rep. Jim Banks about Trump’s decision to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria. In a rare break with Trump, some Republicans were quite critical of his action. This is, in part, because Trump’s base tends to not care about foreign policy, but it is also a case in which Democrats and Republicans form an us group against another them group.

Prior to the interview it had been announced that Trump would be committing a crime and violating the emoluments clause by hosting the G-7 at one of his Florida resorts. Garcia-Navarro asked:

When we look at something like this – the president’s resort – for many people, it speaks to sort of a larger issue with this president about him blowing through every acceptable norm of behavior. And so I wonder for you, what happens when you want to object to something a Democratic leader does someday? Don’t you worry that this sets a precedent that will make that very difficult?

Banks replied, as politicians are wont to, by using a Red Herring. He switched the issue and avoided the questions: “Again, the president decided to retreat from the position of holding it at his property. And I appreciate that the president made that decision. Whether that sets any norm moving forward, it shows that the president is taking the advice of his advisers to do so. And I appreciate that type of leadership.” Garcia-Navarro’s question about Trump’s plan to profit from the G-7 and inquiry about future consequences shifted Banks back into the two sides mode involving Republicans and Democrats rather than the two sides of Americans and foreign foes.

Garcia-Navarro raises excellent questions that should be asked whenever Democrats or Republicans refuse to act against one of their own party members when they are clearly doing wrong. This matter splits into a logical part, a practical part, and a moral part. I will address the practical part because that is the easiest.

Obviously enough if a Democratic president commits misdeeds in the future, then the Republicans will rush to criticize them—even if they rolled over like chubby puppies when Trump did the exact same thing. This is because doing so will be advantageous—it will hurt the Democrats and they know that only a few people, like NPR reporters and philosopher professors, care at all about consistency. If anyone brings up how they rolled over for Trump, they will deny it—and then John Oliver will do a show juxtaposing Republican chubby puppies for Trump turning into rabid pit bulls when President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes to hold the G-7 at her vegan-hipster coffee bar (co-owned with vice-president Corey Booker). The simple matter is the political elite and their followers do not really care about principles; it is all about their side winning and the other side losing. Witness how the Republicans were so focused on the deficit and the Constitution when Obama was president; now they are happy to hemorrhage money and rarely talk about the Constitution.

From a logical standpoint, the way the Republicans roll over like chubby puppies for Trump has no bearing on the merit of future criticisms they might advance against President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. To think otherwise would be to fall victim to an ad hominem fallacy. So, suppose that  a chubby puppy Republican goes full pit bull when President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tries to hold the G-7 at that vegan hipster coffee bar. They would be right that she would be in the wrong—even though they refused to criticize Trump on this matter. Their past actions and words have no bearing on the truth (or falsity) of his future criticisms of President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

From a moral standpoint, Garcia-Navarro is right to be concerned that tolerating bad behavior because your side is doing it will erode norms and prove harmful for the country. While the Republicans will certainly go back to their righteous stances when a Democrat is in office, their past tolerance of misdeeds will rob them of the moral authority to criticize Democrats. Democrats will be able to point, correctly, to Republican moral inconsistency and hypocrisy. While this will not impact the truth of Republican claims, they will be devoid of moral authority—they will be seen, rightly, as hypocrites who pretend to play at virtue when doing so is convenient. They will be the opposite of the boy who cried wolf; they said nothing too many times.

Democrats will, of course, tend to defend their fellows when they commit such misdeeds and they can engage in their own fallacious reasoning by dismissing Republican criticism because the Republicans defended Trump in his misdeeds. And with each cycle it will get worse—whoever is in power can say that the other side has no moral authority to be critical now since they tolerated such misdeeds when it was their guy.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: