And The Straw Goes Marching On

I’m sure we’ve all heard of the False Dilemma. It’s false pattern of reasoning in which only two answers to a question are considered when in fact there could be more answers. Karl Rove describes Obama’s use of the False Dilemma in his new article. He lays out how Obama states, over and over, that his opponents have a opinion which they obviously don’t have and then says that those with that view are the one’s who oppose his policies:

…On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, “I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.” Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Mr. Obama also said that America’s economic difficulties resulted when “regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd’s threat to filibuster Mr. Bush’s needed reforms.

Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln’s 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying “a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government — this constant rejection of any common endeavor — cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges.”

Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that’s a far cry from believing that in “every” case government is the problem or that government should be “dismantled” root and branch. Who — other than an anarchist — “constantly rejects any common endeavor” like building levees, roads or bridges?

During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as “a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing.”

Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican — with the exception of Judd Gregg, who’d just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama’s Commerce secretary and therefore voted “present” — voted for alternative stimulus proposals.

Then there’s Mr. Obama’s description of the Bush-era tax cuts. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy,” he explained in his Tuesday speech, after earlier saying, “tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems — especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few.”

The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to “the wealthiest few.” Everyone who paid federal income taxes received a tax cut, with the largest percentage of reductions going to those at the bottom. Last year, a family of four making $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 because of the Bush tax cuts. The tax code became more progressive as the share paid by the top 10% increased to 46.4% from 46% — and the nation experienced 52 straight months of job growth after the cuts took effect. And since when is giving back some of what people pay in taxes “transferring wealth?”

The best description of Obama by Rove is this one:

Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.

But none of us should be surprised. He is just following his playbook. Always say less than necessary and win through your actions, never through argument.

More here.

Curt

See author page