A House Divided
If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. (Mark 3:25)
This episode of Upstairs Downstairs is being projected onto the backdrop of the American ethos on the eve of a national election that has been particularly divisive and replete with demonization of the opposition by supporters of both political parties. The political rhetoric has become so vitriolic as to be akin to the kind of deprecation of the enemy seen during times of war. I use the term rhetoric loosely, but intentionally, with the intent of examining its true meaning.
I first encountered the term rhetoric in reference to speech and debate in junior high school. However, I later encountered the term mentioned as an academic study as a freshman at UC Davis. During the O-week I adopted the habit of declining to state when asked my major, because I was more interested in what people would think my major is after meeting me. I was entertained by the assumption that I was a kinesiology major at UCD on an athletic scholarship, especially given that UCD was a non-scholarship Division II athletic school and I wished I was that good an athlete. Likewise, I was also amused when people assumed I was a music major, because I wished I was that good a musician. However, I became darn curious when people thought I must be a rhetoric major by my style of speech. That provoked me to ask some questions of those who took Rhetoric I, and of the rhetoric major on our floor. I discovered that not only did UCD have a rhetoric major and department, but other major universities did at that time.
I also discovered that in addition to speech, rhetoric included the study of ethics and philosophy, and particularly the subdivision of philosophy known as logic. Logic is important in debate because it provides a pathway by which through proper inference we can move from the presentation of core truths to a conclusion of new truths. However, our current political rhetoric seems to not only be devoid of logic, but replete with logical fallacies such as ad hominem arguments, the presentation of false dichotomies, and the raising of red herrings.
The use of the ad hominem arguments by both candidates have been particularly poignant in the current campaign. In an ad hominem argument, a speaker attempts to disqualify the argument of the other speaker by attacking their character. The statement presented in an ad hominem argument, even if true, may not be relevant to the inference the speaker wishes to lead the audience to. For example, in this campaign the past moral failings of an individual may not be relevant to that individual’s ability to govern as president of the United States, because the office is not meant to be one of moral or religious leadership. However, ad hominem arguments can sometimes be valid when the inference they wish the audience to make is directly related to the statement. For example, given that the president of the United States is sworn to uphold its constitution, statements about prior bad acts which demonstrate a disrespect of the Constitution of the United States of America, may be indicators of unfitness for office.
Another undercurrent of our current political discourse has been the use of false dichotomies (also known as false dilemmas) by both sides. These seem to pivot off of some level of hyperbole like: If you vote for one candidate you love women and if you vote for the other candidate you hate women, or if you vote for one candidate you love God, and if you vote for the other side you hate God and you are in league with the devil. False dichotomies are easy to leverage in a two-party system. However, a two-party system is not constitutional, but instead a desired outcome of the two major parties. It allows them to split market share just like Coca-Cola and Pepsi split market share in restaurant chains; when you go to a restaurant you get the choice of one or the other. In this present election there is the appearance of collusion to preserve an atmosphere of conducive to the false dichotomies of the two-party system as a third-party candidate dropped out to support one side.
False dichotomy is the tool that the two parties use to maintain their market share and split the vote. The most common false dichotomy that either one of the parties will make will be that if you vote for a third party it is like throwing away your vote, or de facto voting for the other candidate. We must remember that voting is part of our first amendment right to freedom of expression. Voting for a third-party candidate is a valid statement that you do not believe that either of the candidates of the two major parties deserves your vote. Not voting is also a statement that you are free to make indicating either lack of interest or belief in the current political system, the protest of silence, the “none of the above” choice. Writing in a vote is also a valid expression. I only hope that people make their choices mindfully and as a sincere statement of their beliefs.
I will not go in depth about the red herrings and other logical fallacies used by the candidates in the current presidential campaign. Through the experience of having judged speech and debate competitions, I have become sensitized to recognize logical fallacies of arguments. (I was drawn into judging speech and debate by my daughter Asha who progressed through the ranks of competing in speech and debate competitions in high school to being a speech and debate champion in college competing in the national tournament, to now teaching speech and debate for a private learning academy.) While walking a trail together, Asha and I debated whether successful persuasion is more based on logic or passion. It has been my contention that in advertising, politics, and religion the most effective way to persuade people is to speak to their emotional brain, evoke passion. Nonetheless, recognizing the logical fallacies being presented to you as a voter is not only important to making better election choices, but to better accept the election results.
When the votes are counted one of the candidates of the major political parties will win and the other will lose. A mentality indoctrinated into a belief system based off of ad hominem arguments or false dichotomies presented during the election, will have difficulty accepting the victory of an opposition party candidate. When the election is over, we must relinquish the warlike posturing fomented by the vitriolic campaign rhetoric and come together as a nation or else we will become a house divided that cannot stand. At this point, I hope that my conclusion seems as obvious and unnecessary as the sign at the pool that says, “Do not breath under water.” However, the sad truth is that the sign was put there because some idiot tried it and found out. Given our history, both distant and recent, we need this warning.
- More on logical fallacies
- Mark 3:25
- Picture of house taken in Newport Beach California one week before the 2024 United State Presidential Election