Does Congress Matter? John Murtha's airport is dumb.

In Glenn Beck's article “Does Congress Matter?,” he commits some logical fallacies. The first one is oversimplification which is seen throughout the entire report. Beck “reduces complex issues to a simple argument” (Writing and Rhetoric 79). Questioning whether congress matters or not is a broad and complex issue that Beck oversimplifies down to a plea for 56 “re-founders” (par. 5). He basically skips over a discussion of the actual question posed and rambles on about John Murtha's airport (par. 6-10). Glenn Beck's quick banter gets readers and listeners riled up about things that are beyond the question at hand. This is direct result of Beck's oversimplification. Another fallacy committed in the article is that of guilt by association. As Meggie discusses in her analysis, “Beck assumes that all of congress and politics are corrupt. He doesn't give the reader or listener a chance to even think that maybe Congress isn't all completely corrupt” (Meggie Savage). This leads to hasty, sweeping generalities being made. Beck's generalization of the character of all Congress members doesn't allow any wiggle room for those in Congress who may be different. He says he wants “56 brave men and women...to stand up to the corruption and the special interests in [their] own party, [to] stand up to what Washington, D.C. has become” (par. 5). Here he infers that all of Washington needs reform and also that people aren't already standing up to the “corruption and special interests” of their respective parties (par. 5).

Yes, Glenn Beck is quit-witted and smart and maybe has some good ideas, but audiences always need to be aware of the tactics, such as logical fallacies, used to persuade them. The logical fallacies he commits are important to understand so readers don't get swept up along with his generalizations or caught up in his oversimplifications and ramblings about airports.

Ignorance of Authority

In 1949, in the state of Illinois, there was a bill proposed called "An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats", or for short, the "Cat Bill". The article I read was the veto statement made by the governor, Adlai Stevenson. There are many fallacies he uses when he addresses his stand he took regarding the bill. However, there are three that are the most noticeable.

Stevenson begins by stating all of the reasons why he denied the bill. Right off the bat, he starts to become very ignorant. He is allotted to have his own opinions, especially because of the position that he holds. However, he takes his side and pushes it on the reader as if there is no way anyone could feel differently than he does. He does give reasons for why he thought the proposal was not significant, but the way he writes makes it appear that he is saying, 'this law is completely ridiculous and should not have been considered at all'. This can be shown by his statement, "Whatever the reasons for passage at this session, I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law or that it could, as a practical matter, be enforced." (par.3) His complete disbelief and ignorance is quite insulting, as there are obviously people who take the issue seriously. He uses his authority and an 'appeal to ignorance' to try to persuade the reader his opinion is right.

Another fallacy that is found is 'stacking the deck'. Stevenson only presents his side of the argument. He thinks that no one would doubt his statements, no matter how irrational, due to his authoritative position. However, in reality, reading his reasons created negative ethos for himself. As a leader and a governor, one expects him to be rational and to equally present both sides of the argument, regardless of his stand on it. He leaves out anything about why the supporters of the proposal felt the way they did. He ignores their opinions and arguments because they do not support his own.

The last fallacy is that of the 'slippery slope'. In the veto he says, "If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. " (par.5) He tries to make the reader feel that the proposed bill is incompetent because it will just cause more problems.

Stevenson tries to use logical fallacies to persuade the reader that his points are the most valid. However, they work against him and make him look rude and completely biased.

Cats or Birds?

What has more priority- a cat or a bird? In 1949, the governor of Illinois, Adlai E. Stevenson, wrote the “Cat Bill” veto, addressing “An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats”. In this, Stevenson makes his stance on the matter, and in doing so he creates numerous logical fallacies. Those which predominantly appear are “slippery slope”, the “appeal to tradition”, “stacking the deck”, and “false dilemma”.

In his declaration, Stevenson overreacts, or makes the issue larger than it needs to be. He comments, saying that if you try to restrict cats from attacking birds, many negative repercussions will come from it. He says, “It would impose fines on owners or keepers who permitted their cats to run at large off their premises. It would permit any person to capture or call upon the police to pick up and imprison cats at large. It would permit the use of traps” (par.3). From this statement, he argues that by restraining cats, all these events are inevitable. The state will become chaotic because cats will be running around all the time and the police will have to use their time trying to capture cats when they have other important matters to be taking care of. This is an extreme statement, because most likely, cats will go on as they always have, without trouble. People will not always have to call the police or use traps to imprison cats. Stevenson makes the situation sound worse than it needs to be. Therefore, he uses the slippery slope fallacy to support his argument.

Being that this veto was in the year 1949, the people were not used to change. They were old-fashioned and followed the traditions of their parents. Therefore, Stevenson makes the fallacy of appealing to tradition. This is apparent when he states, “The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm” (par.6). He undermines the issue at hand, because he sees no relevance. He thinks that just because cats have always killed birds, that the issue can be passed by. Therefore, he is unable to look past the norms of society, and appeals to tradition, creating another fallacy.

Stevenson deliberately ignores the concerns of those who want to save the birds. He ignores their arguments and brushes them by. He does not see the legitimacy of the issue, which is shown clearly when he states, “I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law” (par.4). But to make himself look correct, he uses the fallacy of “stacking the deck”. This is when somebody ignores the evidence or argument that doesn’t support his decision. This is clear because he makes the situation look less important than it is when he states that he doesn’t see any “demand for [the] law”. He does not address the points they had discussed. He only points out that “this Bill could only create discord, recrimination and enmity” (par.5). Therefore, by “stacking the deck” and only showing his opinion on the matter, he creates a logical fallacy.

Finally, Stevenson uses the “false dilemma” approach. This means that he only sees, or only presents two situations. Either he does not pass the law and birds are in more trouble, or he passes the law and then the state becomes more hectic. He has this mentality and therefore says “not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93” (par.7). He feels the need to add this information, stating that he is not biased. But perhaps, if he had thought more or considered the matter more, he would have realized that this issue could be more than just passing or not passing the law.

Stevenson, although not meaning to, created many logical fallacies in his argument. These were very apparent as he presented only his opinion, overreacted, and was not open to new ideas. If he had addressed more of the concerns of the people and had been more open-minded, these fallacies would have eliminated themselves on their own. Therefore, in order to make an argument ethical and logical, one must point out all sides of an argument and try to avoid any fallacies. By doing this, one becomes more credible and the argument becomes more reliable.

If Kids Stay in School...

When President Obama announced his plans to speak to schoolchildren across the United States, many parents, especially those of the "Right-Wing," became very upset. Believing the President intended to brainwash their children with his "socialist policies," some parents chose to remove their children from school for the day, allowing their fears of socialism to dominate rationality. In his political cartoon, Bill Schorr illustrates the logical fallacies used by opponents to Obama's speech, errors in reasoning that reveal the irrationalities of their opinions.

Using three different panels in his political cartoon, Bill Schorr shows how logical fallacies can arise when logical syllogisms are used incorrectly. As defined by Aristotle, logical syllogisms are a form of logic in which Statement A equals Statement B, Statement B equals Statement C, with a conclusion that Statement A must equal Statement C. With each of the panels representing a statement, an easy conclusion is drawn between panels A and B; that is, if children go to school, they will be educated voters. Likewise, panels B and C can also be seen to correlate, although through a hasty generalization. Using Aristotle's logic, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must also equal C. In this case, Obama's opponents, as parodied by Schorr, utilize a failed logical syllogism. Children attending school are not indicative of the eventual political power of the Republican Party: there are too many outside variables influencing not only the choices of voters, but the type of education children earn as well. In this manner, a logical fallacy is created, an unfounded syllogism stemming from the irrationality of overly concerned parents.

As mentioned above, a hasty generalization is also made between panels B and C, resulting in a logical fallacy. Jumping to the conclusion that educated voters will lead to the demise of the Republican Party is a false notion. As seen throughout history, educated voters belong to both major political parties in about equal numbers, resulting in the continual change in power within American politics. Simply believing that educated voters are preventing the Republican Party from returning to power is also a denial of other, more conclusive factors that affect the choices of voters, educated and casual supporters alike. This conclusion, made by members of the GOP and other individuals, needs more evidence before the platform of the Republican Party is dismantled by hopeless party leaders.

Another logical fallacy also occurs in the oversimplification of the concerns surrounding President Obama's speech. As illustrated above, the GOP is afraid of losing all power; however, not only do they misattribute this fear to Obama's speech, but they also define their fear by a single issue. Rather than identifying the many causes of the Democratic Party's current control of law-making in the federal government, Republican parents who pulled their children out of school are using the President's pep talk as an easy explanation for grievances concerning their political party. Oversimplifying the reasons for an event may be easier to explain to a general audience, but such explanations do not strengthen an argument, especially when extreme measures, such as keeping children home from school, are taken.

Though limited in its scope in addressing the concerns of antagonists to President Obama's speech, Bill Schorr's political cartoon provides a clear illustration of faulty logical reasoning. Arising in many aspects of the arguments given by parents and members of the GOP alike, logical fallacies show the irrationality of the hype concerning the President's supposed brainwashing pep talk. Socialist or not, better logical reasoning is needed before keeping children home from school in order to prevent them from hearing a speech by the President of the United States.

Schorr, Bill. "Cagle Cartoons." Cartoon. Daryl Cagle's Poltical Cartoon Index. msnbc.com, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.