Special pleading can be recognized by three features. 1) Those making the argument want an exemption to a commonly accepted rule or practice. 2) The reasons they cite would normally be irrelevant to allowing an exception. And finally 3) they support their reasoning with unverifiable or unknowable assertions. An example would be “we have to bail out this bank because allowing it to fail would be catastrophic.” Government has policies and practices that allow business to fail gracefully all the time, so a bailout is certainly an exception; the size of a business is not normally a relevant criterion for such an exception; and the true consequences of allowing the normal process of bankruptcy to unfold are unknowable.
It’s clear that the arguments for Hillary’s viability have all three traits. By any objective standard Obama has won the party’s primary at the state level. He has more delegates from the valid state primaries and caucuses, which is the accepted and relevant definition of “winning.” Although the race is not decided, the common practice would be for superdelegates to follow the results from the states unless there is a compelling reason for an exception. Let the special pleading begin!
“She’s ahead in the popular vote.” Since primaries are not decided this way, popular vote is irrelevant. The core of this argument is that she’s actually more popular with voters and would have won if it hadn’t been for caucuses, which is unknowable.
“Florida and Michigan have been disenfranchised.” Again irrelevant because the disenfranchisement happened under party rules. The hypothetical outcome if those states had held valid primaries is unknowable.
“It’s nearly a tie, so the party should put her on top since he can run again in 8 years.” This is a real argument I’ve heard on the Internet, believe it or not. Under what system of American voting rules has “nearly a tie” ever given the loser any claim to the winning position? This also relies on the unknowable conditions 8 years hence when Obama would have to run on Hillary’s record.
“He’s been so misogynistic that Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.” How voters will vote in the general election is explicitly irrelevant to the primary – evidenced by the fact that many states allow voters of both parties to vote in the primary. Misogyny and racism are also irrelevant to a system based on delegates. There’s no question that the campaign has been rife with both – as I have noted, and indeed was part of the reason I voted for Clinton in the California primary – but what is subjective and unverifiable is whether Hillary has been more a victim of misogyny than Barack has been a victim of racism.
“She’s more electable.” This is the ultimate unknowable. While this is not an irrelevant concern in the primary process, the point of the primary is to poll enough of the party’s voters to determine that very issue. You may think the result was wrong for one reason or another, but falling back on unknowables to deny the result is still a case of special pleading.
If you’re a Hillary supporter at this point you probably think I’m being unfair in rejecting all the arguments for her viability as logically flawed. Perhaps I could dismiss any desire for an exception by sneering that it’s “special pleading.” Is this just a catch-all term to ignore important arguments?
There’s a standard that has to be met in order for such an argument to be more than special pleading. The job for Hillary supporters is simple: articulate the universal objective principle that should be applied here to give her the nod. This principle has to be one that is not only most people would agree is fair, but that you yourself would accept when the situation is reversed: when the person you favor has won the national contest but not enough to knock out the candidate that you feel is weaker. Explain why you would give the nomination to the candidate you don’t like in that case and we’ll take your argument seriously.
- jack*
UPDATE: More here.
Recently, I saw a pro-Hillary letter-to-the-editor claiming "she is only fighting for the principle that each vote should count". Funny, I have never seen her working to enfranchise DC or Puerto Rico, nor to abolish the electoral college.
Today, I did hear of an important piece of legislation that could not go forward because Hillary & Obama are both out campaigning. The peoples' business is the loser here. Hillary, bow out and let this end!
Posted by: Ma'at's Feather | May 20, 2008 at 05:06 PM
jack*,
This is not related to this post, but i just bumbled upon your site and have enjoyed your commentary. Excellent stuff. You'll see me on occasion.
Cheers,
anderson@shockfront.org
Posted by: anderson | May 31, 2008 at 05:09 PM