03:27 pm
Fallacies by the Whelan-Barrow
Over the past few days, Ed Whelan, NRO’s resident obsessed Koh-hater strict constructionist, was all over the media this weekend, discussing David Souters retirement. He was in The New York Times. He was in The Washington Post.
And he made an appearance on the Glenn Beck Show.
One of these things is not like the others.
During his appearance on Beck, Whelan highlighted his unhappiness with Souter’s record, and explained why he thinks several candidates for the seat, including Harold Koh and Sonia Sotomayor, would not make him happy.
He’s certainly entitled to his opinion on specific candidates, and I certainly am entitled to think he’s mistaken.
But this goes a little bit beyond the realm of opinion:
GLENN: Any way to stop the steamroller? There’s none?
WHELAN: You know, well, to be realistic about it, all we can hope to do is increase the political costs of a bad pick but, you know, realistically President Obama, you know, could get, you know, Bill Ayers confirmed these days.
GLENN: Yeah. No, I really think he could. And I think there’s a lot of people in the population that will just be like, oh, stop with the Bill Ayers stuff; so what, he blew up a police station and the Pentagon; oh, stop it. There’s a lot of people who would do that.
WHELAN: You would get letters from Republicans supporting him.
To be clear here, I’m not defending Ayers, who a delusional, self-righteous, ideologue who has never apologized for his crimes.
But come on, Ed. This is beyond the pale.
Let’s take a little tour of Whelan’s rhetorical fallacies flourishes:
To begin with, Whelan is using a straw man argument. Obama is so powerful, Whelan says, that he could get Bill Ayers confirmed to the Supreme Court, and therefore we should regard any appointment with suspicion. But the argument isn’t about Obama’s power and popularity, but rather over how he will use his authority as granted under the Constitution.
Second, Whelan’s suggestion that Obama could get Ayers through the Senate is a false presupposition. It implies that Obama would want to nominate Ayers, which, of course, is not even remotely true. In addition, it assumes that Senate Democrats are so pliable that they would automatically do Obama’s bidding, a notion that runs counter not only to what has happened since January 20, but also to Whelan’s jeremiad against Koh, which is predicated on the notion that the Senate can and should block his nomination.
Third, Whelan’s use of Ayers is a classic red herring. Ayers is never going to be a candidate for the Supreme Court, and suggesting that he could be represents a conscious decision to distract Beck’s viewers from the real question at hand — who Obama might pick to replace Souter.
Fourth, Whelan identifies a number of individuals as candidates — Koh, Sotomayor (in her case not by name), Deval Patrick, and Cass Sunstein. He then suggests, rhetorically, that Obama could get Ayers confirmed. This is a classic case of guilt by association. In the mind of Beck’s viewers, they’re all one list — even though, I’m sure, Whelan would claim he had no such intention.
Fifth, earlier in the interview, Whelan describes Koh’s views as “crazy.” That, of course, is what is known as an ad hominem attack, an attempt to discredit your opponent’s views by attacking his or her character. Whelan has said he hates ad hominem attacks, so maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe he defines “crazy” differently — perhaps he’s using it as a synonym for “cool,” “dope,” or “off the hook.” Then again, maybe his definition of ad hominem attacks includes only those made against him.
So let’s check our scorecard here.
√ Straw man argument
√ False presuppositions
√ Red herring
√ Guilt by association
√ Ad hominem attack
If Whelan ever gets tired of writing his blog and running his little NGO, he might want to consider a career in teaching fallacious reasoning.
One other thing: I respect the right of the NYT and WaPo to publish diverse opinions. But is it really necessary to include someone who, no matter how serious he may be in their pages, also indulges Glenn Beck’s paranoia?