Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Fallacy of Consensus

This rhetorical fallacy is better known as argumentum ad populum. What it means, in layman's terms is "everybody knows X is true."

Examples the Left loves to trumpet:

- Everybody knows man-made Global Warming is a fact.

- Evolution isn't just a theory, it's a fact. There are no legitimate alternative theories.

Actually, neither are proven facts. Yes, there is widespread belief in both, largely due to the fact that they are taught unopposed in schools and due to significant Group Think amongst the scientific communities who support both.

For the record, I am not a scientist, nor do I have any intention in engaging in a debate on either topic. They are simply not my area of expertise, and to attempt to argue for them would do nothing but set back those who have studied them in their goal of entering into a legitimate discussion on the topic. (So don't try to debate them with me in the comments or on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook page. I'm not going to do it. I'm no more qualified to argue these points than President Obama is to argue Economics, and unlike the POTUS I'm wise enough to recognize my shortcomings.  Offense intended.)

Any questioning of these ideas is met with ridicule from their colleagues. Ask Michael Behe.

When Behe began to argue his Theory of Irreducible Complexity the Biology community, specifically the Evolutionist wing, began to jump down his throat and pile on against him.  Combining that piling on with Appeal to Ridicule and you have many other members of the scientific community refusing to even consider the potential validity of Behe's argument.

The scientific response would be to conduct opposing experiments in an attempt to disprove Irreducible Complexity by demonstrating that the cells that Behe argues are irreducibly complex could in fact be functional at a lower level of complexity. Instead we get ridiculing of those who dare to question the Group Think.

Furthermore, true science should always be called to perpetually question it's own findings. The two above branches of Biology (Evolutionary Biology and Climatology) have shown a complete lack of desire to question their current positions. Instead of doing what most other branches of science do (continuing to perform experiments to check the validity of their current hypothesizes) they instead continue to argue that everyone agrees, therefore they can simply conduct experiments to further prove the existing "fact."

There are political implications as well. As most uniformed voters: "Everybody knows that Democrats are more compassionate than Republicans." (This is both a great example of a political meme and of the Neighborhood Liberal trap of compassionate intentions with no concern for results.

The bottom line is this: Consensus is neither science nor reality. It simply means it's either been repeated several times or group think has set in. Don't accept (and therefore be silenced by) consensus.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Compassionate Intentions (No results required)

For the most part, our Liberal Rhetoric 101 series was focused on moves by Activist Liberals.  This particular move is generally one by good-meaning Neighborhood Liberals. Unlike the rest of these liberal tactics, this is most often pushed by our Neighborhood Liberal friends. They mean well, they just miss out on the logic of the situation. Then the Activist Liberals use their well meaning (and easily manipulated) counterparts to push their plans.

Let me give you a classic example: Raising the minimum wage. I spent the last day having a debate with a liberal friend on Twitter who keeps arguing the point that raising the minimum wage somehow helps workers. While it is often bothersome to spend your time trying to explain Economics to a Neighborhood Liberal, it's also a fine showing into their logical thinking.

(Normally I'd insert the quotes from this person's argument. I'm not going to, mostly because I actually like this person. He means well. He seems like a good guy. Just blissfully unaware of the lack of positive results of liberalism.  We'll call him "Jeff.")

"Jeff" believes that raising  minimum wage helps workers because it "gives them a 30% wage increase." I'm paraphrasing "Jeff" here but that's the gist of the statement.

I've attempted to explain to "Jeff" that this 30% increase as only in nominal value and not real value. I further tried to tell "Jeff" about the reactions that predictably will occur when minimum wage increases like employers cutting down on hours for their employees as well as the increases that will follow in prices of such inflation-triggering products like food and gasoline (since grocery stores and gas stations pay their employees minimum wage) meaning that in short order, while the nominal value of a minimum wage paycheck will increase the real value will not.  "Jeff," bless his heart, responds with lovely platitudes about how employers "should want" to pay their employees more and essentially ignores the realities of real value and focuses on only nominal value. "Jeff" remains blissfully unaware of the realities.

"Jeff" means well. He doesn't bother looking for the results of liberal programs. All he knows is he wants to be compassionate and he believes the liberal platform is compassionate. "Jeff" believes liberal programs "help people" and that's all that matters. Results don't matter, because the liberal media sources "Jeff" consumes never discuss the results of those policies.

Too many Neighborhood Liberals fall into the same trap "Jeff" does. I have a friend, a pastor, who believes that liberalism is fulfilling the Christian mandate to care for the poor. (I've asked him time and again to show me the part where the Bible tells believers to give their money to the government and let the government care for the poor...he can't do it. Yet he can't wrap his head around the fact that Jesus told US to care for the poor DIRECTLY.)

It's difficult to reach these Neighborhood Liberals. They've been taught to think only on the compassionate intentions of liberal programs.  With Activist Liberals, our goal is to defeat them in the Arena of Ideas. With Neighborhood Liberals, our goal is to win them over.  It can be done. We must, however, ensure we are focused on showing them that conservatism is more compassionate in our results. It's a slow process, but with the Neighborhood Liberal it's a winnable battle.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Fallacy of the Single Cause

One of the things Biblical Conservatism has focused on as a running theme is liberal rhetoric and talking points. Today, we're going to begin a series talking about the actual rhetorical tactics used by liberals to formulate their arguments.

Our first issue is the Fallacy of the Single Cause. Specifically, a Single Cause fallacy is one where the argument is that "We did X (small thing) and thus Y (huge, overreaching thing) occurred!"

Let me give you some examples. A classic one is the Clinton Argument. We're seeing this argument brought up frequently now. The claim is that "Clinton raised taxes, and we had a booming economy and a budget surplus."  The use of this fallacy is simple: We are to assume BECAUSE taxes went up the booming economy and budget surplus happened. Economic history proves otherwise. There were a host of other issues, including the end of the Cold War, the internet boom, cuts in spending forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and tax cuts that happened later (also forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress) that deserve the credit long before an increase in taxes deserves it. (Especially because actual tax revenue went down after Clinton raised taxes.) 

Yet we are pitched the lie that "taxes went up, so did revenue, which lead to a balanced budget and a booming economy."

Another example of this fallacy is one that a friend likes to present: "There are more people who live below the poverty line in red states than blue states, therefore conservative government doesn't lead to prosperity as conservatives claim."

So much is wrong with this argument. First and foremost, the poverty line is a poor statistic. It's based on a national average median income of $50,054 per year for a family of four (we'll round that to $50,000 per year for simplicity's sake). The poverty line for the same family of four is $23,021 per year (again for simplicity's sake we'll call that $23,000).

There are so very many questions that aren't asked or even considered in this false claim. For one, the poverty line and median income are not adjusted for Cost of Living. Blue states, as a whole, have much higher cost of living than red states. Of the top ten most expensive states to live in, nine are blue states. The tenth is Alaska (which is a very unique state in terms of cost of living, as is Hawaii). All ten of the top ten least expensive states to live in are red states.

A family of four making $22,000 per year in a state like Tennessee has the same buying power as a family of four living on nearly $38,000 per year in Rochester, NY (where I live.) A family of four can certainly live on that income. That family is not below the poverty line in blue New York. Let's call the family in Tennessee the Fletchers and the family in New York the Flynns. The Flynns and the Fletchers can buy the exact same things with their respective incomes. Yet the red-state dwelling Fletchers are considered "below the poverty line." The blue-state dwelling Flynns are considered "above the poverty line."


This is just one factor that points out the false logic in this argument. There are many others. Liberals don't point it out. They simply repeat their argument. Ditto for the Clinton Argument.

As always, the solution is simple. We must break down these factors and force the liberal with whom you are debating to present a Prima Facie case (that is, present that their claim is true at first blush). Until they do that, it's nothing more than a false debate.

Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?

Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak! This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff debate.

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

You can read Martin Glynn's blogging at The JC_Freak.

Biblical Conservatism Week in Review (Week of 12/10/12)

Monday, December 10, 2012 - Clinton Era Taxes? How About Clinton Era

The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.

Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.

For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).

What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion.  In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!

Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.


Thursday, December 13, 2012 - Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise

Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.

It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).

It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!

Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.)  President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.

This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality.  Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.

They present the problem this way:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
• A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.

What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.

The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet.  Here's how the Drive- By

So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:

• Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess. 
• Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.

Except, that's not the REAL problem at hand. Here's what the problem REALLY looks like:

• Baljeet has lunch money.
• Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money. 
• Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.

Does anyone thing Baljeet would be wrong to refuse this compromise? Of course not! The compromise ignores the real problem!  The real problem is a bully is demanding something that isn't his from another child. Buford isn't entitled to Baljeet's money. Giving him what he demands doesn't solve the real problem, which is that Buford is a bully.

The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.

That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
  
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
• The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.

This supposed compromise ignores the real problem: Excessive spending.  A false premise is being presented as a red herring. The important detail of the real problem is being left out. The fact is the Democrats want to raise taxes because...ummm...uhhh...I don't know, reasons? Other than punishing the rich, there is no explainable reason. 

So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.