FourFreedomsBlog - Romney: Master of Delusion?

It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!

Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me

Register

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Romney: Master of Delusion?
Author: Raine Date: 06/11/2012 14:26:25

It is unclear who Romney thinks he’s running against, but it is clear that he is not running against President Obama. At least, he’s not running against “IRL” President Obama. Mitt Romney is running against a strawman, all the while erecting strawmen and promptly setting them on fire.

This is an excerpt from a post made by Angry Black lady at Raw Story. The entire post is worth a read, but this statement stuck with me.

Mitt Romney is campaigning against a fictional version of President Obama. It's not just spinning what is being said, it's literally running against someone who doesn't exist. Often when when debating (on the internet or in real life), it is easy to encounter what is known as a strawman argument. According to wiki, A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. A simple example:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Strawman debates are those that attack positions. They are commonly used to attack a position for/against things like religion, politics and social issues. Logical Fallacy explains:

In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

We've all experienced this tactic.

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse

This is why I find the comments from Angry Black lady so thought-provoking. Mitt Romney isn't just applying strawman arguments in this campaign, he as created a fictional PERSON to strawman against. It is a double fallacy that he is campaigning upon. He's created a fictitious person, set up a straw man to debate against in order to argue about what doesn't really exist. Why? President Obama presents a strong argument with facts that support his positions. As thus, the person who set's up a strawman debate is ultimately the weaker of the two in the discussion. Mitt Romney is that person in this case, it appears.

All politicians spin. That isn't a false equivalency situation; politicians spin issues to their benefit. What Mitt Romney is doing isn't close to that, he's creating a false reality and debating a strawman. Isn't that a little nuts? Does it matter when we have people out there that have literally said they don't care who the nominee is, just as long as they get rid of President Obama? Remember this?

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

As long as Mitt Romney is parroting RW talking points, it looks like it doesn't matter who he is. He's a guy that doesn't need to face reality. He's creating illusions and expect people to believe them as fact. Take a look:

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a leader who approaches our nations issues from a position of reality.