If you ever did proofs in high school algebra you’re probably familiar with the Latin phrase redutio ad absurdum. It’s a formal argument that starts by assuming as true the thing you want to prove false. You then make a series of substitutions of one thing with another known to be logically the same and end up with a clear contradiction, like 1 equals 2. Since your initial assumptions produce something that is not true, you know the assumption is false. Quod erat demonstrandum.
A similar, informal type of argument is a cornerstone of our common sense. As I have argued before, we are very good at doing certain specific types of moral reasoning. Some statements of principle might sound reasonable in one context, but a careful and introspective person needs to probe them more fully before accepting that they are generally applicable, or that they are even fair or reasonable in the first place.
“What if a Democrat had said that?” is such a test. Normally this question is asked in slack-jawed disbelief over the inane utterances of some right-wing pundit or spokesman in the national media. And yet those same people keep getting interviews and aren’t laughed off the national stage. Why is that? I can only assume that conservatives in this country, and the media that enable them, have forgotten how to honestly vet their own political biases.
For example, take Bobby Jindal’s recent careful parsing of the idea that Republicans want the president to fail. “'Do you want the president to fail?'” he rhetorically asked himself, “It depends on what he is trying to do." So the general principle being justified here is “If the president is trying to do something that I disagree with, then I hope that he fails.” Other Republicans have made the argument that they only want Obama’s policies to fail, something like “If the president employs policies that I disagree with, then I hope those policies fail.” Can either of these pass a simple, informal reduction to absurdity?
We can easily test these general principles by trying them out with specific examples. For “the president” let’s use George W. Bush. For the thing being done that I disagree with let’s say “invade Iraq.” Many Democrats (and others) including myself vehemently disagreed with Bush’s intention of invading Iraq. I went to the very first protest rally of my life, listened to the self-serving speakers and went on the stupid march for all the good it did. That’s how strongly I felt; my disgust at Bush’s policy preferences overrode my natural cynicism. But do the Republicans stand by their logic when it opposes one of their own?
Using Jindal’s formulation we get: “If George W. Bush is trying to invade Iraq, then I hope that he fails.” The other more subtle one is: “If George W. Bush employs invasion as a policy, then I hope the invasion fails.” First of all we can see that these are substantively the same. Since the thing Bush wants to do is invade, and we hope that he fails at that, that’s the same as saying that we hope the invasion fails. Hoping the policies fail is the same as hoping the president fails, because the president is backing those polices.
Second, I remember what it was like after the invasion of Iraq. The right wingers told us in no uncertain terms that if we didn’t wholeheartedly support the war once it was started that we were traitors. If any high-profile Democrat said they wanted Bush to lose the war the Republicans would have pilloried and demonized them as “fifth column” leftists, probably calling for their execution or assassination. Of course none of us really did that. My wife and daughter spent many months participating in vigils protesting for an end to the Iraq war, but no one was hoping for the troops, the war, or the president, to fail.
Now, you might not accept that war and economic crisis can be taken as equivalent. But I think that’s what Chuck Todd was trying to get at with his somewhat off-key question a couple of days ago. These were both – at least according to their respective presidents – situations that were forced upon us and to which we had no choice but to react. Agree or disagree on the policy, once the president had set his plan in motion attempts (or even wishes) to sabotage it amount to obstructionism at best, or anti-Americanism at worst.
This isn’t what I say – this is what Republicans have said in response to Democratic critics of Republican presidents. A little bit of common sense, properly applied, leaves hypocrites very little room to stand.
- jack*
Comments