cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Fallacies of the Left and Right

1 3 1,582

351189_12480988943_e365403871_o.jpg

One of the most common logical fallacies in argumentation is the either/or fallacy. We see this fallacy a great deal these days because our two-party political system is as deeply entrenched as it has ever been, and each party accuses the other of the most extreme positions on hot topics, as if no center ground is possible. Often, the either/or fallacy leads to the straw man fallacy, as the other side finds itself defending against a much more extreme position than what it truly supports.

 

President Trump wants a wall on our southern border. That leads Republicans to support the unfair assumption that anyone who opposes the wall is for open borders; Trump even went so far as to accuse House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of supporting human trafficking because she opposes the border wall. However, immigration is not an either/or proposition. Both sides are in favor of border security, but if the Democrats must defend themselves against the false charge that they want no restrictions at all on immigration, they waste time and energy that could be spent on reaching common ground. Thus the straw man that Democrats are distracted by and find themselves attacking instead of the real issue.

 

New York’s new legislation about abortion is another example that can be examined in light of either/or logic. Some of those who oppose abortion assume that those who cheered the passage of the legislation must be willing to accept killing an infant in the process of being delivered. The law actually stipulates very specific circumstances under which a late-term abortion can be performed. That “if” clause is what opponents of abortion do not hear. The either/or fallacy comes in accepting that either one opposes abortion under any circumstances or accepts it under any circumstances. If those who support a woman’s right to choose have to defend themselves against the charge that they think it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, they are attacking a straw man rather than addressing the real issue of why a woman would choose a late-term abortion.

 

Any time a speaker or writer argues that if you don’t believe this, you believe that, it is worth pausing to consider if that dichotomy really exists. Is it true that anyone who supports gun control wants to take all guns away from every law-abiding American? Is it true that parents who allow their children to be vaccinated do not care about their children’s welfare?

 

The whole idea behind Rogerian argument is that it seeks common ground from which to work toward reconciling opposing or differing positions. That’s not easy when the issue is something as heated as abortion or the killing of black men by white police officers. It’s not easy because the first step toward reconciliation is being able to accurately state your opponent’s position. As long as every statement is weighed first in terms of its political impact, that step toward common ground will be slow in coming.

 

Photo credit: “Democratic Donkey & Republican Elephant - Caricatures” by DonkeyHotey on Flickr, 2/12/14 via a CC BY 2.0 license.

3 Comments
Migrated Account

Please do not send me any more emails. Thank you.

Elizabeth A. Buchanan

Associate Professor, Language Arts

Writing Center Coordinator

Porterville College

100 E. College Avenue

Porterville, CA 93257

559 791-2356

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information which may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited.

Migrated Account

I love that you used fallacy to demonstrate a fallacy. That is a great attention-getter!

You say that the fact that Trump wants the wall "leads Republicans to support the unfair assumption that anyone who opposes the wall is for open borders." I believe this in itself is a fallacy. For why can't it be that some Republicans assume that anyone who opposes the wall must have a better idea to keep us safe? The assumption that is unfair is the one that assumes Republicans are thinking something so negatively about those that oppose the wall. Not everyone automatically assumes the worst of people.

Fallacy well-taken. Thank you!

Jevon Westmoreland, M.Ed.: English Cognate

Visiting Instructor

Department of English

UMHB, Heard Hall 121

254-295-4692

Macmillan Employee
Macmillan Employee

Hello Elizabeth. To stop receiving emails about new posts on the Community, you can adjust your preferences. When you're logged in to the Community, find your avatar at the top right of the screen and click the down arrow next to it. Click "Preferences" then toggle the first item to "No":

351198_pastedImage_1.png

About the Author
Donna Haisty Winchell directed the first-year writing program and codirected Digital Portfolio Institutes at Clemson University before her retirement in 2008. She edited several freshman writing anthologies and continues to write about argumentative writing and about fiction by African-American women. She is the author of The Elements of Argument and The Structure of Argument with Annette T. Rottenberg.