Anatomy of an Attack
A recent post on this site, entitled "In Fundraising Letter, Obama Attacks Hillary For 'Standing Behind Bush's Policy Of Non-Engagement'" (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/in_fundraising_letter_obama_at.php) inspired
much discussion about the debate in which Barack Obama stated that he
would be willing to meet with other world leaders "without
precondition" within the first year of his presidency.
What particularly struck me about the conversation was how unaware many people seemed to be of the common use of logical fallacy in political debate. During the debate, and in the days that followed, Hillary Clinton used a series logical fallacies to attack Barack Obama in ways that seemed fairly obvious to me, but apparently fooled a lot of people. Her attacks were neither random nor unintentional. Like any good chess player, Hillary has studied, practiced, and honed her skills in applying these gambits to gain advantage over her opponents. As an avid debate enthusiast, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to do a post-debate analysis of the techniques Hillary used in this particular exchange. First, let's establish the primary goal of any gutter-level political operative:
Make your opponent unacceptable to voters.
This, regrettably, describes the current Clinton campaign strategy. It's not about taking the high road. It's not about the issues. It's not about effectively stating your own case. Instead, it's about attacking and raising doubts about the credibility and viability of your opponent. The Clintons are masters of this particular strategic method of leading voters by the nose to the polling booths. Let's examine a specific example--in this case, the debate in South Carolina.
You'll recall the question posed was: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
Barack Obama's answer, in short, was: "I would."
Much has been of the significance of the word "precondition" in this question, and indeed, it's an important point. But in order to understand the dynamics of Hillary's attack, this word may be safely set aside. The term you need to focus on is the word "willing." Let's move on to Hillary's answer:
"I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."
Notice that she didn't answer the question that was asked. She never said whether or not she would be willing to meet with other world leaders. Instead, she stated that she would not "promise" to meet with the leaders of these countries. While this may seem like a minor point, it was entirely intentional, and it was the essential setup to the next phase of her attack. Instead of answering the question that was asked, she reframed it slightly and answered her own question instead. This was her first use of logical fallacy. It's a common variant of the "straw man" fallacy, and it's very important in this particular sleight of hand that no one becomes aware what you have done. So the reframing of the question must be extremely subtle if you hope to have any chance of pulling it off.
A "straw man" is one of the most aptly named fallacies, because it accurately and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. You set up an imaginary man made of straw, attack it, and then declare "victory" over your opponent. Meanwhile, your true opponent stands aside, absolutely untouched. In this case, Hillary's imaginary opponent was the "promise" to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. But no one asked anyone to make such a promise.
Now on to the second phase of Hillary's attack:
On the day following the debate, Hillary attacked Obama's imaginary "position" by setting up another straw man. Here's what she said:
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve to say that he would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year."
Of course that's a complete misrepresentation of what Obama said. But you already knew that, right? See what Hillary is doing? She's playing off her first straw man attack to launch the second one. That's why it was so important for her to answer the initial question in the way that she did. She needed to establish the notion that Obama was willing to "promise" to meet with these people in order to exaggerate that promise into an absolute commitment. Don't be impressed--this is bush league stuff. It's the old Jedi Mind Trick: it only works on the weak-minded. She's playing you like a fiddle. But here's the really essential part of Hillary's attack--the setup for the coup de grace, if you will:
"Obama gave an answer which I think he's regretting today."
Why would she say that? Think about it for a moment. What does Obama have to regret? He said he would be willing to meet with these particular world leaders. Is that a regrettable statement? Of course not. But Hillary launched this line of attack knowing that the press would demand that Obama clarify his position. The essential point here is that Obama did not, in any way, need to clarify his position or his answer. What he needed to do was to remind people of the original question that was asked. Hillary, of course, accused him of changing and nuancing his position, but that was precisely why she made the assertion that Obama was probably "regretting" his answer. She was setting up a phony "problem" for Obama. In reality, the only reason any clarification was required is because she had intentionally and dishonestly changed the question. Her goal was to obscure and undermine Obama's candidacy, the facts, and the truth.
While I understand and acknowlege that politics is a dirty game (especially when the Clintons involved), it seems to me that people should be aware of what's going on. There is no honesty in politics--only strategy (that is, until Barack Obama came along).
Advice to Obama: The next time Hillary sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry for a moment about losing the strawperson vote.
What particularly struck me about the conversation was how unaware many people seemed to be of the common use of logical fallacy in political debate. During the debate, and in the days that followed, Hillary Clinton used a series logical fallacies to attack Barack Obama in ways that seemed fairly obvious to me, but apparently fooled a lot of people. Her attacks were neither random nor unintentional. Like any good chess player, Hillary has studied, practiced, and honed her skills in applying these gambits to gain advantage over her opponents. As an avid debate enthusiast, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to do a post-debate analysis of the techniques Hillary used in this particular exchange. First, let's establish the primary goal of any gutter-level political operative:
Make your opponent unacceptable to voters.
This, regrettably, describes the current Clinton campaign strategy. It's not about taking the high road. It's not about the issues. It's not about effectively stating your own case. Instead, it's about attacking and raising doubts about the credibility and viability of your opponent. The Clintons are masters of this particular strategic method of leading voters by the nose to the polling booths. Let's examine a specific example--in this case, the debate in South Carolina.
You'll recall the question posed was: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
Barack Obama's answer, in short, was: "I would."
Much has been of the significance of the word "precondition" in this question, and indeed, it's an important point. But in order to understand the dynamics of Hillary's attack, this word may be safely set aside. The term you need to focus on is the word "willing." Let's move on to Hillary's answer:
"I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."
Notice that she didn't answer the question that was asked. She never said whether or not she would be willing to meet with other world leaders. Instead, she stated that she would not "promise" to meet with the leaders of these countries. While this may seem like a minor point, it was entirely intentional, and it was the essential setup to the next phase of her attack. Instead of answering the question that was asked, she reframed it slightly and answered her own question instead. This was her first use of logical fallacy. It's a common variant of the "straw man" fallacy, and it's very important in this particular sleight of hand that no one becomes aware what you have done. So the reframing of the question must be extremely subtle if you hope to have any chance of pulling it off.
A "straw man" is one of the most aptly named fallacies, because it accurately and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. You set up an imaginary man made of straw, attack it, and then declare "victory" over your opponent. Meanwhile, your true opponent stands aside, absolutely untouched. In this case, Hillary's imaginary opponent was the "promise" to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. But no one asked anyone to make such a promise.
Now on to the second phase of Hillary's attack:
On the day following the debate, Hillary attacked Obama's imaginary "position" by setting up another straw man. Here's what she said:
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve to say that he would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year."
Of course that's a complete misrepresentation of what Obama said. But you already knew that, right? See what Hillary is doing? She's playing off her first straw man attack to launch the second one. That's why it was so important for her to answer the initial question in the way that she did. She needed to establish the notion that Obama was willing to "promise" to meet with these people in order to exaggerate that promise into an absolute commitment. Don't be impressed--this is bush league stuff. It's the old Jedi Mind Trick: it only works on the weak-minded. She's playing you like a fiddle. But here's the really essential part of Hillary's attack--the setup for the coup de grace, if you will:
"Obama gave an answer which I think he's regretting today."
Why would she say that? Think about it for a moment. What does Obama have to regret? He said he would be willing to meet with these particular world leaders. Is that a regrettable statement? Of course not. But Hillary launched this line of attack knowing that the press would demand that Obama clarify his position. The essential point here is that Obama did not, in any way, need to clarify his position or his answer. What he needed to do was to remind people of the original question that was asked. Hillary, of course, accused him of changing and nuancing his position, but that was precisely why she made the assertion that Obama was probably "regretting" his answer. She was setting up a phony "problem" for Obama. In reality, the only reason any clarification was required is because she had intentionally and dishonestly changed the question. Her goal was to obscure and undermine Obama's candidacy, the facts, and the truth.
While I understand and acknowlege that politics is a dirty game (especially when the Clintons involved), it seems to me that people should be aware of what's going on. There is no honesty in politics--only strategy (that is, until Barack Obama came along).
Advice to Obama: The next time Hillary sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry for a moment about losing the strawperson vote.
