I've pointed out that the Arizona Republic's position of "Conservative Columnist" is vacant. Bob Robb has held the position for 30 years and uses the space to discuss arcane economic policies--and to tell people how smart his is*. For all of his jargon and pomposity, Robb's arguments are usually sound so I was surprised that he committed this classic fallacy. See if you catch it.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs recently wrote a peculiar column for KTAR.com.
In it, he denounces, with equal disdain, Never-Trumpers and those who want to move the country in a socialist direction.
“Never-Trumpers” is a coinage of Trumpteers supposedly to describe those leaning to the right who will never vote for Donald Trump.
There are vanishingly few true Never-Trumpers. But there are a reasonable number of conservatives and right-leaning independents who really don’t like Trump. More accurate to call them Don’t-Like-Trumpers.
This is called the Straw Man Fallacy. I've written that the Straw Man is the Most Satisfying Fallacy. Bob Robb didn't rebut Andy Biggs' argument. Robb REWROTE the argument and then defeated his own fantasy version of what he claims Biggs said. I'm sure that this was deeply satisfying.
Biggs expressed his disdain for "Never Trumpers". We've seen examples....Jeff Flake, Phil Boas, Bill Kristol...who will NEVER back Trump.
What did Robb write? Robb conceded that there are "vanishingly few" Never Trumpers. That concession defeats Robb's entire argument.
Here's the headline of Robb's column.
Why would Rep. Andy Biggs attack the Arizona voters Donald Trump needs?
But why does Trump need group of "vanishingly few" voters? And why does it hurt if Biggs "attacks" a small group who--by definition--will NEVER vote for him.
Robb's premise is absurd on its face. So Robb had to rewrite Biggs argument. Robb claims that Biggs is "attacking" a reasonable number of conservatives and right-leaning independents who really don’t like Trump. More accurate to call them Don’t-Like-Trumpers.
"More accurate to call them..."
That's a straw man. The "Don't like Trumpers" are not the group that Andy Biggs was discussing and it's not the argument that Andy Biggs was making. It's the argument that Bob Robb WANTS to rebut. So Robb simply rewrites Biggs' argument and then rebuts it.
I'm getting used to Robb's preening and his droning on about Quantitative Easing and the role of the Bundesbank, but I have come to expect solid analysis and high-quality writing. If this fallacy-riddled poorly reasoned column is part of Robb's future then there is no hope. The position is worse than vacant. It's being filled by a pompous technocrat--who can't make a decent argument.
Footnote: I'm not opposed to writers telling us how smart they are. In fact, I was perusing one of my copies of Voltaire in my solarium when I realized...but I digress.
However, in this column Robb's pompous attitude interferes with his writing and weakens his argument.
For example Biggs did a good job with this sentence.
For them, it isn’t about good policy, or aligning our legislation with our values, as much as it is about avoiding personal animus in a stiff, Victorian sort of way.
"Stiff, Victorian sort of way."
That's excellent. You can picture Downton Abbey with everyone (OK, just the men) in the parlor sipping Brandy and opining on the issues of the day.
Here's Robb's take on that metaphor.
In the first place, the politics of Victorian England were far from tame. They featured a bitter rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone that frequently broke out into searing public commentary.
Really Bob? Biggs' metaphor was excellent and uses a classic depiction of the Victorian age without being overly haughty or pedantic. Robb used it as an excuse to demonstrate that he as read a biography of William Gladstone--which is haughty and pedantic.
I can handle Robb digressing into arcane economic theory. I can tolerate him being a technocrat. I may even forgive him for occasionally making a fallacious argument.
But I'm not going to be able to read his columns if he becomes completely insufferable. And he needs me to read his columns that's because his readers--not unlike the Never Trumpers--are, as they say, "Vanishingly Few."