ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 1

On Logical Fallacies in the American Political Climate

Michael Sperry

University of North Georgia

 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 2

Abstract

This report primarily is centered around constant presence of various types of logical fallacies in

modern-day American political rhetoric. The main goal of the report was to understand why

these fallacies have persisted over the years. To accomplish this goal, a variety of sources were

consulted. Numerous online academic journals dealing in both political science and psychology

were utilized and are cited throughout the essay. In addition, the insight of Dr. Douglas Young, a

professor of political science at the University of North Georgia, was used in a few specific

instances in the essay. Finally, multiple non-academic news articles were also cited, largely for

the purpose of obtaining recent examples of logical fallacies uttered by politicians. The results

garnered by this investigation seem to indicate that a major reason why political elites manage to

maintain power seem to pertain to their ability to frame their arguments, flawed as they may be,

in such a way that they only focus on aspects of an issue that their target audiences find

important. This is further accentuated by a growing atmosphere of intense polarization between

the two major parties in the United States Government.

 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 3

A common trend that can be observed in the context of modern-day American politics is

the tendency for political figures, on both sides of the aisle, to utilize logical fallacies in various

situations. The types of fallacies utilized vary from individual to individual; everything from

classic strawman arguments to appeals to urgency may be spotted when viewing the speeches

that politicians deliver. This begs an intriguing question, why is it that politicians often manage

to gain power and influence despite the noticeable presence of fallacies in their argument? One

potential answer is the current trend of polarization between the two main political parties of the

United States, the Democrats and Republicans. These two organizations are ideologically

divided along various lines: Republicans are on the conservative side of the political spectrum

and Democrats are on the liberal side. Both the parties and their respective supporters are heavily

averse to the ideological positions of the other side. This partisan gulf is then reinforced by

various prominent individuals within the two parties via the use of carefully designed rhetorical

appeals that are meant to appeal to the beliefs and shared identities of their bases and demonize

the opposing side for not sharing these beliefs. Crucially, it must be understood that influence

garnered by many modern American politicians is due in large part to their ability to play to the

various dispositions of their own bases; their use of logical fallacies is a symptom of this, as they

often simplify complex issues in order to appeal to their voters, thus resulting in potential gaps in

their arguments.

There are many examples of logical fallacies exhibited by politicians, including a fair

number of instances pertinent to more contemporary events in American politics. The highly

publicized presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton contain multiple

examples of logical fallacies uttered by both candidates. For instance, Hilary Clinton utilized

what is called an appeal to emotion when she made a lengthy statement about the particular
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 4

urgency of this specific election; citing examples such as choosing new justices for the Supreme

Court or the issue of American energy consumption (medium.com 2016). This argument was

flawed in nature because both examples that she cited are not necessarily extraordinary in nature,

as energy consumption has been topic of discussion for the last two decades and the last several

presidents have each been responsible for the appointment of Supreme Court justices

(medium.com 2016). Donald Trump was similarly guilty of espousing logical fallacies, a notable

example being the use of an ad hominem attack against Hilary Clinton in which he demeaned her

for her supposed complicity in the alleged sexual misconduct of her husband, Bill Clinton

(medium.com 2016). Fallacies such as these are designed to denigrate the public image of an

opponent by slandering them with accusations that may or may not have basis in fact. They may

not be an effective method of promoting intelligent discourse, in fact, they are quite the opposite,

but when executed correctly they are clearly useful for gaining an advantage over an opponent.

Otherwise, ad hominem attacks would not be in use any longer.

Many other examples of logical fallacies utilized by politicians in various other rhetorical

situations exist. A commonly used fallacy known as a “straw man” argument was once used by a

prominent Independent Liberal Senator known as Bernie Sanders in which he hyperbolically

suggested that individuals who were against the concept of regulating the usage of firearms

desired to own missile launchers (Morris, Hannah 2017). Another common type of fallacy, a

non-sequitur, was once used by an advocate of fewer gun restrictions named Gayle Trotter.

Trotter was testifying on the Senate floor about a woman who defended herself from a group of

home invaders with an assault weapon in an attempt to argue against newly-proposed gun control

legislation that would restrict the use of certain assault weapons. (Campbell, Caroline 2017).

However, this particular argument proved lacking, as the particular weapon in question was not
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 5

in any danger of being banned by this legislation (Campbell, Caroline 2017). Examples such as

these indicate that politicians and activists on both sides of the political spectrum often will use

fallacies of various types to demonize the opposing side and manipulate voters to share their

position via the careful selection of half-truths and exaggerations.

In addition to the typical textbook examples of logical fallacies, politicians have also

been attributed to a particularly nuanced type of fallacy in which they appeal to what is referred

to as “identity politics”. According to Dr. Douglas Young, a professor of political science at the

University of North Georgia, identity politics is the mistaken belief that individuals who belong

to a certain gender or racial/ethnic group, must all share the same political views and vote for a

political figure based on these shared qualities. He contradicts this by stating that “every single

one of us is a unique individual with his own personal history and views”. Therefore, he reasons,

a Caucasian male who is conservative would, politically, have more in common with an African-

American female conservative than he would with a Caucasian who is liberal. A similar

argument can also be made with regards to gender. In an article by Bonnie J. Dow for the

Department of Communication Studies at Vanderbilt University, the role of gender, and of

sexism, in particular, is briefly discussed (Dow,2017, p.136). While Dow argues that there was a

degree of bias against Hilary Clinton due to her gender, it was not the main factor that

precipitated her defeat (Dow,2017, p.138) Instead, Dow (2017) argues that the results of the

2016 Presidential Election were “not a referendum on gender and women’s suitability for public

office; it was a referendum on voters’ tolerance for politics as usual” (p.138). All of these various

pieces of information indicate that the political ideology, not race and gender, drive voting

habits.
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 6

A contrasting viewpoint is articulated by Efren Perez in an article for the Department of

Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Perez (2015) cites multiple studies that delve into the

subject of racial identity correlating with political behavior; some of these studies suggest that

the connection is non-existent, while others suggest the opposite (Perez, 2015, p.158). Perez

takes a different tact from Young by arguing that to suggest there is no connection would be

premature, as there is still much debate on the subject. (Perez, 2015, p.158). Indeed, his article is

primarily focused on how rhetoric from various high-ranking politicians actually can increase the

salience of group identity by alleging negative qualities about said-group, thus galvanizing them

into political action (Perez, 2015, p.160). A specific example is mentioned in which Ronald

Reagan recounted the tale of an African-American woman from the south side of Chicago who

held 80 different names and 30 home addresses for the purpose of committing welfare fraud

(Perez, 2015, p.160). Perez (2015) argues that this story was designed primarily to appeal to a

white audience and that it had the unintended consequence of “raising the salience of black racial

identity while impugning its worth” (p.160). Clearly, the notion of identity politics and its exact

place in political discourse is in dispute, but is certainly is possible for factors like race to be a

factor in political discourse if particularly incendiary rhetoric that is interpreted as being

detrimental to a certain group is used. Remarks such as those made by Reagan can then easily be

utilized by the opposing party to characterize the other side as unfeeling towards the group in

question, thus fueling animosity and making group identity more of a factor than it may

otherwise be.

The appeal to identity is not the only method by which political figures may attempt to

manipulate public opinion. A common tactic many modern American politicians utilize, known

as framing, is also worthy of consideration. Framing, as defined by Jeffrey Koch (1998), a

 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 7

professor of political science at New York State University, is the process by which politicians

define a particularly complex issue which is relevant at the time and then attempt to simplify it

(Koch, 1998, p.211). In doing so, the issue is thus presented in a manner which is most suitable

for the narrative that the public figure wishes to construct regarding the issue in question, and

they are then able to sway public opinion towards their point of view (Koch, 1998, p.211). A

specific example of this sort of framing can be seen by examining the debate over healthcare

during the 1990’s. At the time, there was a concerted effort being spearheaded by President Bill

Clinton and a number of his close allies to create a system of universal healthcare (Koch, 1998,

p.213). To promote this initiative, Clinton and his supporters sought to frame the issue as a

matter of equality, that the notion of universal healthcare was a right that all American citizens

are entitled to possess (Koch, 1998, p.213). This was later countered by Republicans in Congress

as well as various figures within the health insurance industry, who framed the proposed

legislation as bringing about unwanted government intrusion upon Americans’ health care

(Koch, 1998 p.213-14).

By studying this push and pull between both sides, it starts to become clear how

fallacious arguments may arise. The tactic of framing is largely successful because, according to

various theoretical and empirical psychological works, individuals do not consider all of the

factors at play when evaluating a particular issue but instead only focus on the aspects they

consider most important (Koch, 1998, p.211). Political elites can easily take advantage of this by

playing into these dispositions, confirming their biases and surreptitiously moving them away

from any contrasting viewpoints. By only focusing on these specific aspects of rather nuanced

issues like healthcare, it becomes obvious how incorrect or exaggerated interpretations may
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 8

arise; thus explaining, at least in part, why logical fallacies have remained a part of modern

political discourse.

The long-term usage of tactics like framing not only contributes to a persistence in logical

fallacies but it also indirectly contributes to a decline in governmental productivity by creating an

atmosphere of polarization. In his dissertation to the Department of Political Science at Baylor

University, Joseph Wysocki (2013) notes in his exhaustive study on the recent decline of the U.S

congress that “often the proper balance between institutional and partisan identity was a matter of

intense discussion and deliberation on the floor” (p.6). This apparent conflict between a

politician’s obligation to promote productive legislative accomplishments and their own

ideological predilections seems to be a common theme that has been noted by other scholars.

As stated by Molly Wilson (2014) in an article for the Law and Psychology Review academic

journal, when lawmakers gather together, they begin to coalesce with other individuals who

share similar ideological viewpoints and form cliques through which they attempt to direct

policy (Wilson, 2014, p.118). Over time, individuals within these groups will become more

deeply entrenched within their own political beliefs and be less open to dissenting viewpoints,

even when receiving new information which contradicts their arguments (Wilson, 2014, p.118).

Wilson (2014) states that politicians in these groups “have put unprecedented amounts of time

and energy into ramping up fear and loathing for those holding opposing views” (p.118). A

recent example of this sort of behavior would be the debates surrounding the controversial

Affordable Care Act. The Democrats who supported it reminded the public of the ever-rising

costs of healthcare, which the bill sought to alleviate, while the Republicans presented it as a

threat to individual freedom and even a potential threat to American democracy (Wilson, 2014,

p.118). This helps explain the extreme partisan divide between the Democrat and Republican
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 9

parties, as well as the internal divisions within both parties. As noted by Dr. Young, politicians

on both sides of the aisle tend to genuinely believe that their positions are best for America and

will consistently vote, almost without fail, according to the tenants of their respective parties.

Obviously, this makes the process of governance exponentially more complicated as there is

inevitably less room for compromise as neither side wishes to capitulate on any particular point.

It has been observed by multiple individuals that while political rhetoric in Congress has

become more partisan in tone, the overall rhetorical tone of various Presidents from both sides of

the political spectrum has become more bipartisan in tone. This was most recently observed

following the very recent State of the Union address from President Donald Trump, which has

received some praise from the press for adopting a decidedly moderate tone and focusing on the

virtues of a strong and resilient America (Roberts, 2018). This occurred simultaneously with

congressional Democrats having been discovered to be utterly indifferent to the speech and were

seen nonchalantly checking their phones (Roberts, 2018). In an article by Jesse Rhodes (2014), a

professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, a great deal of quantitative

evidence is presented that suggests that partisan public statements made by various sitting

presidents have largely been in decline and reached a new low during the Presidencies of

Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Rhodes, 2014, p.129). In fact, Rhodes (2014) estimated that between

1993 and 2012, the proportion of partisan themes present if presidential statements reached as

low as 2% and rarely rose above 30% (Rhodes, Jesse 2014, p.129). Overall, this would appear to

be a contradiction to the narrative that party polarization has paralyzed much of the United States

Government.

However, while Rhodes (2014) provides much evidence of the trend towards

bipartisanship in presidential rhetoric, he is also quick to note that while presidential rhetoric
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 10

may have become more bipartisan, the actual Presidents have not (Rhodes, Jesse 2014, p.121).

He uses this point to argue that the trend towards bipartisanship is more reflective of an increase

in bipartisan posturing on the part of these individuals to cut through the partisan atmosphere of

Congress and appeal to the American public (Rhodes, Jesse 2014, p.121). Interestingly enough, a

similar tactic has been observed amongst congressional members, who have been noted as using

more ambiguous language in their speeches to obscure their actual stances of key issue in an

attempt to appear more moderate (Milita, Simas, Ryan, Krupnikov, 2017, p.49). Given this

information, it seems that as polarization within Congress increases, various key political figures,

including the President, have attempted to stand out from their peers by deliberately obfuscating

from their true political leanings to appear more moderate and better appeal to the public.

The recurrence of logical fallacies in political discourse seems to be a ubiquitous reality.

They come in many different forms, from fairly subtle appeals to urgency designed to exaggerate

the salience of a particular issue, to flagrant ad hominem attacks meant to discredit opponents.

Ultimately, political elites still manage maintain their power despite, and perhaps, to an extent

because of these fallacious arguments largely as a result of the highly polarized political climate

of the United States. Much of the American electorate is split into two factions that share very

few ideological beliefs. Politicians take advantage of this by framing complex issues to correlate

with the biases and collective identities of their specific bases. In the end, this may ultimately

result in a downturn with regards to governmental effectiveness as fallacious arguments become

the norm and polarization continues to take hold.

 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 11

Rhetorical Rationale

I selected this particular topic in part because I felt that this assignment would afford me the

opportunity to conduct a brief but thorough study of the current state of American political

discourse, something I have wanted to do for some time. To focus my topic, I elected to use the

recurrence of logical fallacies in political rhetoric as the main subject of the essay, as they are

fairly common in modern political situations. Also, I felt that a discussion on fallacies would

naturally allow me to touch on other matters that I believe go hand-in-hand with the use of

fallacious arguments. Chief among these matters is the issue of party polarization, which, as I

have attempted to articulate in the essay, is a major driving force for the continued use of

fallacies in political rhetoric. This, in turn, lead me to the notion of framing as I was trying to

establish a link for how politicians are able to persuade people with their flawed arguments. My

decision to also incorporate identity politics into the essay was largely driven by Dr. Young’s

insistence on the topic. He spoke at great length about it in his e-mail to me. I decided to include

it because I felt that it could indeed be considered a type of fallacy. Also, although the essay does

not directly state this, the focus on the collective identities of various groups does bear some

similarity to framing. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the essay, I believe that its inclusion

does benefit the text by providing a slightly different perspective on the matter. Ultimately, my

goal with this topic was to elucidate the various ways in which our political elites attempt to

sway the public through narrow, and in some cases, insubstantial arguments that are meant only

to appeal to very specific bases. Hopefully, I was at least moderately successful at this.
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 12

References

5 Logical Fallacies from the Second Clinton Trump Debate. (2016, October 12). [medium.com].

Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://medium.com/@Chiasma/5-logical-fallacies-

from-the-second-clinton-trump-debate-4080336314e1

Campbell, C. (2014, March 20). You’re Using Fallacies and You Don’t Even Know it Part 2:

Fallacies in Politics. Retrieved January 22, 2018,

from http://www.copypress.com/blog/youre-using-fallacies-and-you-dont-even-know-it-

part-2-fallacies-in-politics/

Dow, B. J. (2017). Taking Trump Seriously: Persona and Presidential Politics in 2016. Women’s

Studies in Communication, 40(2), 136–139.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2017.1302258

Koch, J. W. (1998). Political rhetoric and political persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2),

209. Retrieved

from http://libproxy.ung.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru

e&db=aqh&AN=941833&site=eds-live&scope=site

Milita, K., Simas, E. N., Ryan, J. B., & Krupnikov, Y. (2017). The effects of ambiguous rhetoric

in congressional elections. Electoral Studies, 46, 48–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.01.004

Morris, H. (2016, July 26). Fallacies In Politics. Retrieved January 29, 2018,

from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/fallacies-politics

Pérez, E. O. (2015). Ricochet: How Elite Discourse Politicizes Racial and Ethnic
 ON LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLIMATE 13

Identities. Political Behavior; New York, 37(1), 155–180.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.1007/s11109-013-9262-0

Rhodes, J. H. (2014). Party Polarization and the Ascendance of Bipartisan Posturing as a

Dominant Strategy in Presidential Rhetoric. Presidential Studies Quarterly;

Washington, 44(1), 120–142. Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/politicalscience/docview/1540786300/abstract/6FC496

2E622C4806PQ/6

Roberts, K. (2018, February 8). Trump’s State of the Union captured the bipartisan spirit

America forgot [Text]. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/372965-trumps-state-of-the-union-captured-the-

bipartisan-spirit-america-forgot

Wilson, M. J. W. (2014). The Rhetoric of Fear and Partisan Entrenchment. Law & Psychology

Review; Tuscaloosa, 39, 117–159. Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/psychology/docview/1706579225/citation/40F55DA6B

661452BPQ/16

Wysocki, J. F. (2013). Rhetorical Practice in Congress: A New Way to Understand Institutional

Decline (Ph.D.). Baylor University, United States -- Texas. Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/politicalscience/docview/1422402850/abstract/A1465040FEF74021P

Q/2