Sunday night Twitter fight: Straw men, then and now
posted at 7:15 pm on May 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Today’s bill: Jake Tapper vs KarlRove and Jenfidel. The New York Times has taken notice of a rhetorical habit into which President Obama has fallen, and it touched off quite a row on Twitter today, which I saw mostly from my cell phone. Does Barack Obama use straw men more than Republicans? After noting that Democrats whined for eight years about George Bush’s use of them, Obama seems pretty comfortable with the practice, too:
Now that there is a new team at the White House, guess who is knocking down straw men left and right? To listen to President Obama, a veritable army of naysayers has invaded Washington, urging him to sit on his hands at the White House and do nothing to address any of the economic or national security problems facing the country.
“There are those who say these plans are too ambitious, that we should be trying to do less, not more,” Mr. Obama told a town-hall-style meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., on March 18. “Well, I say our challenges are too large to ignore.”
Mr. Obama did not specify who, exactly, was saying America should ignore its challenges.
Similarly, the next day in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama took on Wall Street and Washington, two of his favorite straw men. “I know some folks in Washington and on Wall Street are saying we should just focus on their problems,” Mr. Obama said. “It would be nice if I could just pick and choose what problems to face, when to face them. So I could say, well, no, I don’t want to deal with the war in Afghanistan right now; I’d prefer not having to deal with climate change right now. And if you could just hold on, even though you don’t have health care, just please wait, because I’ve got other things to do.”
Mr. Obama continued on the offensive against straw men that day in Los Angeles, pointing out that critics told him not to go on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” on NBC because “I can’t handle that and the economy at the same time.” Then, his audience primed, he delivered his standard kill line: “Listen, here’s what I say. I say our challenges are too big to ignore.”
One has to marvel at the fact that the NYT was the first major media outlet to note this practice. Karl Rove pointed out first on his Twitter feed:
Must Read: Helene Coopers’ WH Memo http://tinyurl.com/ogztyc I’m also collecting a list of Obama’s Straw Men on Rove.com. #TCOT
Tapper responded:
@karlrove i agree POTUS fights strawmen too often- but so did President Bush. Did it bother you then? do u acknowledge it?
That got Jenfidel started:
@jaketapper The other instances you called “straw men,” there were actual Democrats (often many) saying that very thing. Bush didn’t do it.
Most of the Twitter fight took place between the latter two; be sure to read through their entire feeds. While I empathize with Jenfidel and agree that the media was a lot tougher on Bush than Obama, Tapper’s closer to the truth. In fact, everyone uses straw men from time to time, and politicians more often than most. It’s just too easy to belittle your opposition by using a reductio ad absurdum and replacing their more nuanced arguments with a risible slogan or two. If that’s how we get “Some here want us to sit on our hands and do nothing” from Obama, then it’s also how we got “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” from Bush about other nations in the war on terror.
The problem for Obama is that repeated use of the straw man reduces credibility. The fact that Helene Cooper has already collected enough for a feature article after a mere four months on the job demonstrates that Obama is making too much use of a lazy crutch in order to make his argument. It also undermines his supposed status as a post-partisan moderate; if Obama spends his time mischaracterizing the opposition, then he can’t be much of a post-partisan at all. It took Bush and his administration eight years to get the list Tapper compiled, which makes Cooper’s article all the more striking for its contrast.
Update: Somehow, I missed Jimmy Bise in that exchange. Be sure to check out his comments, too.
Update II: Some in the comments object to me calling the “with us/against us” comment a strawman. Well, in fact some countries opposed our war policies without declaring war against the US or declaring an alliance with the terrorists. It was a straw man to declare such opposition in and of itself hostility towards the US. Does that mean I think Bush was wrong in his policies and his public emphasis on them? No, but it was still a straw man argument.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Wow did you make up that Caribou moniker ?
Interesting that after stealing the work of another you lie about Palin.
CWforFreedom on May 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM
You’re obviously not, unless you think your comment is appearing on something other than a web site.
Jim Treacher on May 25, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I’m not sure why you would have added this update, as LifeTrek had clearly explained the problem with classifying “with us or against us” as a strawman.
“With us or against us” is not an argument, it is a statement of our position. Period. All it does is give forewarning to countries that either they are going to help us or they are going to be viewed, by us, as the enemy. There is nothing to debate in this, meaning that it cannot be a strawman.
Now, you can argue that just because a country is not actively helping us does not mean that they are aiding the enemy, but the “with us or against us” statement just said that that was a distinction without a difference in how our policy was going to be formed, and all countries were made aware of that so that they couldn’t claim that they were caught off-guard in ending up on the wrong side of American policy.
In any event, that is all moot, now, as we have an enemy occupying the positions of power in Washington who are, without any doubt, against America and everything we stand for.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Oh, nice, you shifted contexts there. The “with us or against us” remark was made in realtion to the War on Terror, shortly after 9/11. The actual, fighting war that was on the horizon was not Iraq, but Afghanistan. The message was, if you are not rooting out the international terrorists in your own country you will be viewed as an enemy. It is NOT, as another commenter here stated, a false dilemma. If you do nothing in regards to international terrorism in your territory, you are aiding the sworn enemy of the United States by providing a safe harbor. It was a statement that the rules had changed, and that countries would not be allowed to disavow responsibility for attacks on other countries that originated on their soil.
Anyway, “with us or against us” was not employed by the President or his staff as an argument for the Iraq war. So, essentially, what you just did was make a straw man of your own.
JSchuler on May 25, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I’m sorry, but is the left now using “bush did it” as an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE of Obama’s unwillingness to confront reality?
Is Bush still President? Or is the MSM, even when supposedly criticizing, STILL covering for Obama?
Or did the whole world just become STUPID in the last few years? Don’t answer that, I don’t want to know.
Merovign on May 25, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Exactly right. A strawman is a type of argument. “With us or against us” is a philosophy, even if it’s offensive and narrow-minded.
Ed, how can you call this a strawman argument? There are plenty of other examples to choose from anyway, such as Bush constantly arguing against opponents of the partial-birth abortion ban without mentioning their main reason for objecting, which was the lack of an exception for the health of the mother.
tneloms on May 25, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I’m definitely on the “With us or against us” NOT being a straw man. It is obviously a statement of policy.
A straw man is when you argue against something you opponent did not say, because it is an easier argument to defeat.
Right after 9/11, Bush said we would make no distinction between terrorists and countries who harbor terrorist. In the war on terror, you were either with us or against us. This was the entire justification for going after the Taliban by invading a sovereign country like Afghanistan
The ultimatim also caused Libya to give us nukes, Iran to suspend its nuclear program and cooperate in Afghanistan, and Musharaf to cooperate in Pakistan.
Ed needs to choose a better example.
willamettevalley on May 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Ed: Not that I always trust Dictionary.com, but here’s the definition of “straw man” I pulled from there:
Bush’s point was that the failure to take a stand against global terrorism was itself aiding and abetting those terrorists, such as the addage “all it takes for evil to prevail is for enough good men to do nothing.”
Perhaps it’s an exaggeration–or even a gross one–to equate inaction with opposition. But at least the rhetoric directly confronted the actual position these countries took. You even seem to admit this point without taking it to the proper conclusion:
But it is precisely the avoidance of an opponent’s position that sets the straw man argument apart. By tossing out Position A and knocking it down, you give the appearance of having refuted Position B, even though no one (or hardly anyone) has advocated Position A. That’s disingenuous, and a logical fallacy.
Bush’s argument was not to knock down Position A (opposition to America) and thereby refute Position B (not helping us). Rather, he said Position A was no different from Position B in order to guilt those who held Position B into taking Position C instead. It’s like those who oppose abortion (Position B) claiming the practice is nothing less than murder (Position A) in order to create support for banning the procedure (Position C). You can question the truth of the conclusion even if you concede that the form of the logical analysis is sound–and, certainly, people disagree on this point.
As you can see, mere hyperbole does not a straw man make.
cackcon on May 25, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Actually, I think I might shed some light on this.
Generally, ‘for us or against us’, as in the statement, “If you are not with us, you are against us” is considered a logical fallacy. However, it is not a _straw man_ fallacy. It is a false dichotomy fallacy.
Note: _false_ dichotomy. If it is a statement of policy, it would almost be considered a true dichotomy, and thus not fallacious.
As an obvious example, those who argue that anyone who does not support Obama’s policies hate them are engaging in a false dichotomy. Those who argue that anyone who does not support Obama’s policies hate _him_ are basically using a false defense against ad hominem (itself a logical fallacy). Inasmuch as defending against ad hominem is considered easier than defending against a reasoned attack, it technically can be considered a strawman.
Anyway, study of logical fallacies is fun, if incredibly exhausting in politics.
Scott H on May 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Scott, you’re at least right that this is what has been claimed by those who disagreed with President Bush.
However, it should be noted that the fallacious nature of such an argument depends upon whether the dichotomous positions are, in fact, mutually exclusive.
The Left cried foul over this mentality because they didn’t want us to treat friends as enemies for not lending assistance to the GWOT. Their claims that this was a fallacy were not entirely accurate, though. After all, if the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military is seriously declaring that those who do not help are considered aiding and abetting terrorism, then that’s just how it is.
The key distinction is that the speaker himself has created the dichotomy. I could say, “I’m either going to the grocery store tomorrow, or I’m going to starve.” Well, ordering pizza delivery is in the realm of possibility, too, but I’ve excluded it intentionally, so there! If it’s in my power to create the dichotomy, it’s not a logical fallacy–even if it is arguably misguided.
And frankly, we should be wary that Leftists love to toss out the “false dichotomy” label because to them there is never any black-and-white but only shades of grey. Every web site I’ve seen confronting similar fallacies, including the straw man one, uses examples of opposition to progressive causes. But then, suggesting that the only argument against your position is a straw man argument is itself a reverse-straw-man argument, if you think about it!
cackcon on May 25, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Yeah, he was so intelligent that he never wrote a single article for that publication.
Dubyah went to Harvard too-grad school, as a matter of fact. By your “logic”, that makes him even smarter than O’bama.
Del Dolemonte on May 25, 2009 at 5:32 PM
How can I buy straw futures? Chicago Mercantile Exchange maybe?
Sapwolf on May 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
It’s interesting that it is difficult to find several undisputed examples of strawmen used by George W Bush in 8 years, but Barack Obama has done it in just 4 months.
It just shows that Obama is intellectually lazy. The teleprompter is not the only evidence of that laziness.
Right_of_Attila on May 25, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Yep. Bush rarely used strawmen, if ever. Usually, he just stated what his position was and why he was doing it, by his own thinking. This used to tick off the Dems to no end. Bush never really bothered to engage in debates, though he did listen a lot. “The Decider” moniker was quite accurate.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Oof. That was very poorly worded. What I meant to say was that Bush was secure in his decisions and stated them in a straight-forward manner, without feeling the need to engage in any rhetorical slight of hand to convince anyone else. He just said what he thought and let people decide for themselves. He had no need for strawman arguments.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Here’s the deal: A straw man makes you an proponent of an argument. The parallel with Bush would have been if he refered to “those who want the terrorists to win.”
Also, satire is technically a straw man, but only a person who wants too much to win an argument would implicate obvious satire as “straw man”. Of course satire is strawman–the English probably would never have proposed eating the Irish, but it would never have been as effective as satire if Swift has just stuck to fair interpretations.
Obama presents his straw men in serious segments of his speeches, Zell Miller waited for the laugh after his spitball comment–and still the press still felt the need to discuss the Miller’s “false dichotomy” and indicated that it might be as much as a straw man as well, because nobody had suggested the military use spit balls.
Axeman on May 25, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Neither have the libs, really, but they like the appearance of engaging in a debate, or engaging in dialog–so they talk about it a lot more. This is how we end up in a discussion about Obama’s over use of straw men, countered by “tu quoque” replies citing satire or ultimatums–simply because they have to find equivalency, so they can go right back to the Alinskian “hypocrite” tactic.
Axeman on May 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
A strawhorse ia a strawhorse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a strawhorse of course
That is, of course, unless the strawhorse is from the famous Mister Ed.
Go right to the source and ask the strawhorse
He’ll give you the straw that he’ll endorse.
He’s always on a steady straw course.
Talk straw to Mister Ed.
MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM
People yakkity yak a streak of straw and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak straw unless he has some straw to say
A strawhorse is a strawhorse, of course, of course,
And this one’ll talk ’til his straw voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking strawhorse?
MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 12:50 AM
What’s kind of sad is that the supposed straw man example of Bush’s “with us or on the side of the terrorists” you’ve all used as the basis of your discussion wasn’t one of the examples Tapper was trying to use; it was Ed’s choice.
The article he cited (in the Twitter fight) is this one:
Making Hay out of Straw Men by Dana Milbank in the WashingtoncomPost.
(I mistakenly referred to it as Tapper’s own article which it wasn’t.)
As you can tell from that article–if you aren’t a Lefty Ogabe Kool Aid drinking loon like Milbank and Tapper–none of the instances Milbank cites are really straw men, proving once again that Tapper was seriously wrong, that Bush didn’t do it “so often,” as he maintained.
That being said, even if it was a given that Bush used straw man arguments “so often,” was Tapper saying that Obama should be given a pass for overusing them, too?
Where was he going with his attack on Karl Rove that “Bush used it, too?”
As my fellow Twitterers pointed out, it’s not his job to defend the current President, but to report the WH news, but as we all know only too well by now after observing years of such Leftist advocacy in the MSM, their bias is so obvious and constant that to see it in action is almost pedestrian and boring.
Jenfidel on May 26, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Neither are all the cases that Rove cites at his website, though. But I’ve read his original WSJ article and he does a better job of spotting them than Milbank does.
Straw man has some range. I’ve been in discussions where I’ve been accused of a strawman simply because I was trying to put words to the extreme outcome/position that a rational course draw the line against. That appears to be the same flavor that Bush is using for the “equally right”, “emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve”. They are examples of what we must not be led to, and at no point does Bush strongly indicate that there is an actual argument for that type of thing. I’m sure that Lincoln’s opposition weren’t arguing that the Constitution was in actuality a suicide pact–for Lincoln, it was just the type of thing that it should not become, by argument or inattention.
A straw man argument is not summarizing someone else’s argument outside of their terms. Otherwise we’d be at the mercy of those who have no conscience. I’ve argued with people that have this misconception. However I would point out that calling my argument a “straw man” was a “straw man” in the same sense, because I never called it that.
It’s noteworthy that Will, as cited, objects to something which is closer to an actual false attribution: “There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern.” So there is an arguable straw man there.
However, even in this the idea is “believe” you can believe something and not give voice to it, you can believe something at not give argument, you can believe something and not fully assent to all of its consequences. You can believe something that tantamount to this.
Often the arguments that the left gives are sooo simplistic that exaggeration of that principle should be a legitimate counter. Teddy Kennedy has long argued that the American people deserve the same healthcare that he, as a Senator, gets. Really? Does he wait in lines now, or can we reasonably suspect that either we will never have a waiting period or Senators will get the same waiting period?
Is he now being ruled “unviable” because of the limited return in light of his advanced age? I heard a lib (who identifies himself more as “M-O-R”) argue that OF COURSE there would have to be rationing, because the healthcare resources aren’t infinite (geez!) So either universal healthcare doesn’t recognize this and were all going to get endless cancer treatments at advanced age, or they have already ruled Kennedy a limited return unbeknownst to any of us.
Axeman on May 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM
And Obama said 57 states, yada, yada. People make mistakes. Country/continent, 50/57, whatever. If you want to pick your candidates on how many times they mispeak, instead of the substance of their policies and ideology, feel free. But remember that the people of Germany did the same thing in 1930. So did the people of Italy when they elected Mussolini.
Every person who has ever sat down and actually had a conversation with Sarah Palin, right or left, has concluded that she is bright, a quick learner, and has it on the ball.
But then, libs are about identity politics and personal destruction, aren’t they?
PastorJon on May 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2