Personal attacks on the intelligence or character of public figures have become a normal part of public discourse on almost any subject these days. Consider as one example, the recent exchange between the Obama and Romney presidential campaigns about sensitivity to dogs.
The Obama campaign has chided Gov. Romney for an incident years ago when he put his dog in a crate on top of his car and drove to Canada. David Axelrod, the president's chief campaign strategist, recently tweeted a picture of him in a chauffeur-driven car with his dog Bo, with the caption, "How Loving Dog Owners Transport Their Dogs." The Romney campaign countered with a passage from President Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, in which he recalled eating dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia. I call it a draw on the dog insensitivity challenge.
More serious attacks on public figures' intelligence or character are standard on the political talk shows on the 24/7 cable channels. But it seems to me that calling people stupid or lacking character is becoming increasingly common in everyday conversation about people with whom we disagree for one reason or another. Such ad hominen attacks, as philosophers refer to them, are resulting in less thoughtful political discourse in this country, in which a robust market place of ideas is vital to the functioning of democracy.
Philosophers argue that an ad hominen attack is a logical fallacy because the argument or claim by someone is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about them, such as whether they care about dogs. An ad hominen attack generally occurs in two steps: 1.) First an attack is made against the character or intelligence of the person; and 2) This attack is then presented as evidence to refute their argument or claim. That is, neither Romney or Obama, depending on what side of the fence you stand, should not be elected president in November because they are insensitive to dogs.
Put another way:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B attacks the character or intelligence of Person A.
3. Therefore Person A's claim is false, even though the attack on them is irrelevant.
How can we elevate public discourse on significant issues? Letting politicians know that ad hominen attacks insult our intelligence by declining to vote for them would be a good start. But we perhaps could start the process in our living rooms.
Disparaging a public
figure's intelligence or denigrating their character because you disagree with
their politics, sexual orientation, or faith, or because you simply don't like
them, takes neither intelligence nor courage from the safety of our living rooms.
And when we do so repeatedly, we collectively endanger the future of this
country:
--Talented and accomplished men and women, the ideal citizen-politician
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, decline to run for office
because they will have to subject themselves and especially their families to
personal attacks.
We should always consider that we might perceive a politician as dumb or
dishonest because we not understand their policies. As Albert Einstein once put
it, “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
--Gay and lesbian boys and girls who grow up in a culture in which some would
call them “defective” too often fail to reach their full potential because
they lack self-esteem, living lives of quiet despair which too frequently end
in suicide.
The world is full of extraordinarily talented gay, lesbian, and
transsexual people. Consider as just a few examples, dancer Alvin Ailey, author
Truman Capote, singer k.d. Lang, actor Neil Patrick Harris, or tennis player
Billie Jean King. If folks such as these, who have contributed so much to the
world, are defective, what does that say about those without their intellect, talent,
or accomplishments who just happen to have been born heterosexual?
--Labeling them as “hypocrites,” “self-righteous,” or “deluded,”
inhibits people of all faiths—Christian, Muslin, or Jew—from publicly
expressing their religious beliefs to the extent they wish—in a country whose
original settlers sought religious freedom.
People of faith are not better people than those who are atheists or
prefer not to participate in an organized religion. Practicing a religion is no
guarantee that anyone will become a better person. Yet those who strive to be
better people by any means should be respected not scorned. It is certain,
however, that belittling anyone’s beliefs, religious or otherwise, will make
you a lesser person.
And if you have need to make such ad
hominem attacks, remember that you harm not only those you denigrate, but also
those who love them. Everyone is someones daughter or son, mother or father,
husband or wife, or sister or brother. It should not matter whether we know
them personally or not.
If you want a better political system, the change has to start in your living room.
