Logical Fallacies V - Accusations of Hypocrisy or Inconsistency

A year and a half ago, I started a series of blog entries on logical fallacies and their use in municipal politics. Logical fallacies are pseudo-arguments that consciously or unconsciously attempt to falsely persuade or manipulate people. They treat people as means rather than as ends, manipulating their thoughts, their feelings, their prejudices, their loyalties for the speaker's ends.

This blog entry will build on the first logical fallacy I wrote about, the ad hominem attack, which directs attention away from a person's argument toward the person making the argument. I will consider an ad hominem attack that is very common, the accusation of hypocrisy or inconsistency.

This form of ad hominem attack is especially interesting, because two people can be saying essentially the same thing, but have completely different goals in mind and have a completely different relationship both to the person being attacked and to the people they are trying to persuade.

Let's take the example of a mayor who ran on an anti-development platform, arguing that Main Street has too much traffic now, and any more would send people out to the suburbs. A firm is seeking to build a new commercial complex on Main Street, and the mayor supports it.

A supporter of the mayoral candidate writes a letter to the editor saying that the mayor went back on his promise to stop development on Main Street. The supporter wants the mayor to oppose the development, because it would increase the traffic on Main Street, etc. He is making the same argument the mayor made, and which he believes. His goal is to persuade people to join him in trying to stop the development.

An opponent of the mayor writes the same sort of letter to the editor, but she focuses not on the argument against the development (she supports the development), but on the mayor's inconsistency. Her argument is more about the mayor's character:  he is a hypocrite, a man who does not keep his promises. Her goal is to persuade people to join her in voting out the mayor. But she says most of the same things about breaking promises that the mayor's supporter said.

People like to see promises kept. They feel betrayed when they are not kept, and this makes people very angry. The mayor's supporter mentions the breaking of the mayor's campaign promise, but it is not central to his argument, and he is trying to stir up emotions not about the mayor, but about the development.

The mayor's opponent supports the development and the mayor's arguments in favor of it, so she has no intention of stirring up emotions against the development (although she realizes that, if the development is identified with the mayor, it might be best to defeat both the development and the mayor). The opponent sees the development simply as an opportunity -- a means -- to get people to dislike and oppose the mayor. Even though the opponent talks about the development, her argument has nothing to do with it. It is all about the mayor. She only wants to get people worked up so that they will oppose the mayor and, next election, elect someone who will approve even more development on Main Street.

This sort of ad hominem attack is difficult to respond to. It is hard to defend hypocrisy and promise-breaking. You can say that no candidate ever fulfills all of his or her campaign promises. But this rubs most people the wrong way, even though they will themselves insist that you can't trust anything a politician says.

You can say that situations change, and government officials have to be flexible. But many people prefer candidates who stick to their guns.

One thing I have done is point out that the opponent is attacking someone for supporting something she herself supports. Why, I ask, is she attacking someone for taking a position she agrees with?

Another possible response is to show the fallaciousness of the argument in a way that is relevant to the particular situation. I recently did this in a letter to the editor, when an opponent of my town's first selectman attacked the first selectman for inconsistency.

I pointed out that the opponent's party had been running the town for many years before, and had been doing many things consistently wrong, including the issue the opponent raised. I argued that what our town needed was not consistency, but inconsistency, that is, breaking with the ways things were done before. I noted that both parties were doing this particular thing wrong, and that I hoped this soon would change.

My goal was to get the particular problem handled correctly, as well as to make the opponent look bad for focusing on the first selectman's inconsistency (that is, for his logical fallacy), rather than on the issue itself.

Creative responses are necessary in this sort of situation. Attacks on an official's hypocrisy and inconsistency, rather than her views and actions, can become rampant and replace constructive discussion (this has happened, to some extent, in my town). These attacks are like weeds, which if left to grow, can destroy the garden.

My other three blog entries on logical fallacies are as follows:  The Ad Populum Defense, The Straw Man, and Begging the Question.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---