Barack Obama's political campaign displays the logical fallacy of red herring in an advertisement commercial about his opponent John McCain. In this advertisement, Obama makes the effort to merely "win" the argument and ultimately the political race rather than emphasizing a critical issue about the nation's economy. The commercial starts with the claim that John McCain does not "understand the fundamentals of the economy." However, it ends with the assertion that McCain owns seven houses, essentially diverting the attention from the issue of the economy to how much McCain's houses cost. This represents red herring fallacy in that the first topic about McCain being ignorant about the fundamentals of the economy, then a new topic is introduced that is partially relevant but does not fully support the issue presented in the beginning of the argument. Therefore, the original topic is "abandoned" (The Nizkor Project 2011), and a new topic about McCain's houses is introduced. In essence, the argument is "supported" or reasoned by a distracting subject change rather than efficient arguments that strongly relate to the purpose of the claim. The fallacy presented in Obama's campaign advertisement depicts that simply drawing the attention away from the issues presented does not prove an argument reasonable.
Obama's advertisement can be found here!
I really wonder sometimes if a politician can be on television for longer than ten minutes without digressing to some off base shots against the opposing candidate. Still, some politicians make legitimate arguments only adorned by these attacks on the opposition's character. Would you say that, in instances when a politician's argument is sound, red herrings and personal attacks are unnecessary?
ReplyDeleteThis also seems to have a little ad hominem in it...attacking the opponent rather than the argument....I find it funny how he can say that McCain is less prepared for the job simply because he owns seven houses. How is this relevant? It's not.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Grove: Television advertisements around political campaign seasons are almost unbearable for me, purely for the reasons you suggested. I do find a significant number of personal attacks unnecessary in a politician's argument and refute against his or her opponent. If they had legitimate, sound arguments, personal attacks and red herrings are not necessary. The addition of these fallacies would only weaken one's argument.
ReplyDeleteCS1414: I actually found that this also had ad hominem. It definitely attacks personal claims, but ad hominem refers more to personal characteristics. Obama's supportive evidence for his claim about McCain is definitely irrelevant, and it is even difficult to make out what he is actually trying to prove with the advertisement.