Sadly, I've been away the past few days and have thus been derelict in my duty to apprise readers of the many fallacies in Ron Fournier's articles. If you're new to this page, I have begun chronicling all of the logical fallacies in the columns of Washington's must irritating pundit, using this very helpful guide. Over the past few days, Fournier has amazingly written some non-objectionable content on Senator Joe Manchin's daughter's decision to repatriate her business overseas. I'll give him a pass on these columns. But luckily, we still have two doozies to review. Let's start with this vapid piece from July 21, entitled: Is the White House Lying or Just Bad at Crisis Communications?
Straw Man: Fournier starts the piece by quoting Obama spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri saying that Obama wouldn't interrupt his daily activities during international crises "just for show." To Fournier, this is "indicative of the Obama White House conceit that their guy is above politics." This is indicative of no such thing, besides the White House not wanting to do something just because it would make Ron Fournier happy. The White House has never said or intimated that it Obama is above politics (save perhaps for Obama's 2004 convention speech).
Appeal to Emotion: Fournier is arguing that the absolutely harrowing events overseas mean that Obama should do what Fournier wants, which is to get back to Washington and act Presidential.
A ground war in the Middle East and raining bodies over Ukraine are cause for alarm.
That sure does rely on an appeal to emotion. I like the "raining bodies" imagery! But that's not a good argument as to why it would make ANY difference to ANYONE if Obama got off the campaign trail to show "leadership." Furthermore, it offers no substantive rebuttal to the White House claim that it didn't want to cause the public to panic.
Special Pleading: One of the best/worst aspects of this article is that the entire premise turned out to be false. Fournier's initial criticism of the President's activity, on Twitter, assumed that a Russian report claiming that 23 American citizens were on Flight MH17 were true. It turned out not to be true, but fear not! Fournier will not let a major fact get in the way of the argument he wants to make. Look at this beauty of a sentence:
The Russian report was wrong, which isn't a surprise, and which doesn't substantially alter the urgency of the moment: Let's go, sir.
It seems that this is a bit of a special pleading: "The President needs to panic and change his schedule because 23 American citizens died"
"That's not true."
"Oh. Well, he STILL should because, you know, serious and stuff."
Loaded Question: Check out the headline.
Let's move onto this article from July 22, entitled: Fiscal Doom: What You Weren't Told About the Latest Budget News. We've got some good old fashioned deficit/debt scolding! On to the many fallacies!
Straw Man:
Fournier argues that what we REALLY need to address the debt problem is a grand bargain between President Obama and Speaker Boehner (he, of course, doesn't really care what goes into the grand bargain). He then claims that neither leader has the courage and/or ability to strike a deal. The history doesn't support this claim. For better or worse, Obama had agreed to a $4 trillion debt deal during the Summer of 2011, and Boehner had to back out because his caucus was not willing to go along.
Appeal to Emotion: Instead of arguing why a projected increase in the long-term debt really means we should do what Fournier wants (cutting entitlements), he gins up the fear machine.
Higher taxes, fewer entitlements. It's going to happen sooner or later, painfully or more painfully, and nobody in charge in Washington seems to care.
You wish. There are ways to cut debt to sustainable levels (which could very well be a higher percentage of GDP than recent debt/GDP ratios) without cutting entitlements, especially in the near/medium term. But the frame here makes things sound extra gloomy. CUT SOCIAL SECURITY NOW!
The Slippery Slope: Most debt panic relies on slippery slope arguments. "If we don't starve granny, we'll turn into Greece!!!" The long-term debt is a problem, but Fournier is more interested in envisioning a debt hellscape in which our entitlements and taxes have to go up immediately before the bond vigilantes take over!
Black or White: This is Fournier's main problem, vis-a-vis his deficit scolding. Either we solve the problem now by making drastic changes that will cause a lot of people to suffer, or we'll have to raise taxes and cut entitlements. There are alternatives. You could try policies that accelerate economic growth. You could enact immigration reform. You could add a public option to Obamacare. All of these things would decrease the deficit, but are not good enough for Fournier because he really really wants to cut entitlements.
Middle Ground: Fournier fetishes the so-called "Grand Bargain." It must be good, because it is bipartisan! He once claimed that he didn't care how the country cut the debt, he just wanted a deal to get done. Fournier doesn't grapple with the possibility that a grand bargain would actually be terrible policy. If it is a middle ground between the two parties, it must be good!
I know I've given you a lot of fallacies to digest, but the news gets worse: he could be releasing a new column today.