Too Hasty Hastings

[The article: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/04/getting_the_gulf_coast_back_to.html to which this is a "hasty" rhetorical analysis - showing the need for critical thinking and deep questions. A student pointed out, after seeing what I wrote, the doubtful numbers fallacy - when the congressman quotes a precise number, down to the last digit, of jobs that will - definitively - be lost, we know there's some snake in the oil.]

Too Hasty Hastings

Doc Hastings Op-Ed “Getting the Gulf Coast back to work” exemplifies the problems with political debates, or current attempts to persuade the public. Despite its appropriate-for-the-newspaper-reasonable tone, the article masks misinformation, bad logic and partisan sniping.

Except in a class on rhetoric and argument, it’s hardly worthwhile to point out every error Doc Hastings makes - because there are so many of them. But let’s begin at the beginning: “As gasoline prices continue to surge towards $4 a gallon and unemployment lingers near 9 percent, Americans are seeing the consequences of the Obama administration’s policies that have prevented access to our own American energy sources.”

In that sentence alone I count three factual errors, three fallacies and one rhetorical foul.

First, the factual errors: The sentence implies that President Obama’s policies, particularly the moratorium on deepwater drilling, caused the surge in gas prices. But according to Fadel Gheit, a former Mobil Oil executive, now a a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., the impact of the moratorium on gas prices is “Nothing. Zero.” (Factcheck.org has done a thorough analysis of the $4 a gallon question here: http://factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/)

Hastings’ first sentence also implies that President Obama’s policies have caused the unemployment rate to “linger” near 9 percent. In fact, the recession of 2007 is the main cause for today’s high unemployment. Most economists agree that Obama’s policies prevented the unemployment from getting worse. And in fact, the President’s policies have resulted in greater employment, despite the depression-like economic hole we were in before he took office. Thus, private employers added 1.8 millions jobs in the last 13 months, an average of 138,000 per month. In March, 230,000 private-sector jobs were added to payrolls.

And Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com say that without TARP and the Recovery Act, GDP would have been $1.8 trillion lower in the fourth quarter of 2010 than it actually was. (See the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities “Chart Book: The Legacy of the Great Recession” for more details http://www.cbpp.org/)

The third factual error: “the Obama administration’s policies have prevented access to our own American energy sources.” Actually, this will lead us to the fallacies and fouls, the bad logic and worse rhetoric. But first, just the facts. “

“American energy sources.” “Our own American energy sources.” What would those be? Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, bio. I think that covers it. Yet, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in the generation of renewable energy sources. That’s renewable American energy sources. Our own American renewable energy sources.

But of course Doc Hastings isn’t talking about “energy sources,” because “energy sources” includes “energy savings,“ otherwise known as “energy efficiency.“

No, Doc Hastings isn’t talking about “energy.“ He’s talking about oil.

Which, as I said, leads us to the logical fallacies and rhetorical fouls.

Fallacy number 1: The Cum Hoc - Because two things happen at the same time, one causes the other. Obama is president and gas is near $4 a gallon, ergo Obama caused the cost of gas to go up. In fact, investors’s fears about the unrest in the Middle East, particularly Libya and Egypt and commodities traders betting against a declining dollar are the real reasons for the surge.

Fallacy number 2: A Conjunctive Association - “As gasoline prices continue to surge towards $4 a gallon and unemployment lingers near 9 percent” implies that the two are somehow related.

Fallacy number 3: Affirming the Consequent - high gas prices and high unemployment “is proof that” Obama’s policies have prevented access to energy sources. Those events don’t prove a (non-existent) prevention of access.

Rhetorical Fouls (or other fallacies) in the sentence include an ad populum, loaded words, ambiguity and poisoning the well. All in one sentence! I leave the reader the joy of identifying each, with the assurance that they’re not hard to discover.

The point is if the first sentence is so misleading and misinformed, how much credence can the rest of the op-ed have?

Here’s an example from the end: “...my fellow Republicans and I will … advance additional legislation [that] will focus on onshore energy production, renewable energy production, hydropower, coal and critical minerals that are vital to renewable energy and new technology.” Leaving aside the question, how is coal “vital to renewable energy,” one must be struck by the sense of déjà vu all over again: this is but an echo of President Obama’s policies.

So either Doc Hastings himself wants to prevent access to our own American energy sources, or he’s pandering (politely) when he says President Obama’s policies have done that.

Does there need to be a debate on energy policy? Of course. Are oil, gas, coal and other non-renewable sources part of that debate? They have to be. But it’s dishonest and deceptive to pretend an argument for “drill, baby, drill” is anything like a comprehensive approach to our energy problems or policy on energy.

Critical Symbolism

There really is no such thing as coincidence, so we shouldn't be surprised at the confluence of two headlines. One, the release of a study showing that students don't learn much in college; the other, the symbolic vote in the House to repeal the health law. Each informs the other, in rhetorically revealing ways.

Despite protestations, the Republican vote was only symbolic. The repeal bill will die in the Senate and would otherwise be vetoed by the President. Even the name indicated its symbolism: "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." By any objective measure, such a name - misnomer - does the Ministry of Truth proud, ranking up there with "ignorance is strength" as an example of "words... used in a consciously dishonest way." It is symbolic because, again despite posturing, opposition to the bill is declining and support for its major provisions is rising - and this among Republicans. It is symbolic because, as Paul Krugman points out (http://nyti.ms/fxiPAh), "Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs like veterans' care already pay significantly more American medical bills than private insurance." So the "capitalism - socialism" argument is false to begin with. Its symbolic because nobody really knows what to call the whole thing: is the debate about health insurance or health care? They're not the same. Do we call it Romneycare, since the whole thing is modeled on Massachusetts, or Obamacare? And if Medicare is good, then what about Obamacare - we shouldn't care for the sick?

But if the Republican newspeak lockstep is only symbolic, it should not be dismissed as just an empty gesture. It was a powerful move rhetorically. It was meant to coalesce its audience, to demark boundaries, to define "us versus them." It was, in short, a demonstration. And demonstrations are just a mass performance of demonstrative rhetoric.

Demonstrative rhetoric, as my friend Jay Heinrichs points out in Thank You For Arguing, is not the rhetoric of argument; it's the rhetoric of feeling. Demonstrative rhetoric persuades us by making us feel good - or angry. It's the language of the present tense and of values. It is the least critical of the rhetorical modes: Analyzing cause and effect, determining facts (the past tense-forensic mode) requires a rigorous application of logic and attention to the details of data. At least, if such an inquiry is to be honest or accurate, it does. Determining the cost or benefit of a policy (the future tense-deliberative mode) also requires critical thinking - the ability to see relationships, to reason from analogy with precision, to consider variables and alternatives, etc.

This brings us to the second headline, the not-so-startling (at least to those involved in higher education) conclusion that "45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years." According to the findings reported in Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, students aren't asked to do much. "Half of students did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week." The main problem seems to be a lack of rigor: where teachers demand intellectual engagement and accountability, students demonstrate (!) complex critical thinking skills, the ability to reason (argue) in writing.

In other words, it's not that students - and, truly, the American people - can't reason well. We only need to listen to conversations in sports bars - or the like - to see deep critical analysis in action. But students, like the American public, respond to expectations. And if the expectations only match the in-the-moment, carpe diem demand of the student (child, customer, voter), then the argument never gets started, because the conversation never gets out of the demonstrative.

Demonstrative rhetoric is critical. It's the starting point. It states values and declares needs. (Sometimes, quite dramatically. Children cry for a reason.) But if those charged with leading the discussion - with analyzing causes and deliberating choices - satisfy themselves with the symbolic (I guess even politicians need instant gratification) then, rather than "truth emerging from argument among friends," public discourse, non-critical and demonstrative, will be reduced to "the defence of the indefensible."

A Rhetoric of Balance

No two snowflakes are alike. No two fingerprints are alike. Everyone has a unique handwriting. And, it may be argued, everyone is rhetorically unique. This uniqueness can be seen most clearly in major figures. It has been said that Lincoln argued by definition. Winston Churchill is probably best known for the rhetoric of addition. (Think of his "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" or his "we shall fight" speech, which repeats the phrase seven times before beginning the last paragraph with "we shall never surrender.") Kennedy was a master of the chiasmus (Ask not...).

Probably a great deal can be made of rhetorical style - Sherlock Holmes like, we might develop a "personality analysis" based on the types of devices, fallacies and constructions a writer, speaker or really any individual prefers. Patterns will out.

But that's beyond a blog. What is within our purview here is just how much President Obama relies on a rhetoric of balance. It is, I think, his rhetorical signature, and he is most effective when employing it. Perhaps no other figure - certainly no other president - is such a virtuoso.

One can easily speculate why Obama is so comfortable in the rhetoric of balance, but here I'd like to look at an opinion piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal ( http://on.wsj.com/eZ8HrV ). Of course, his speech after the Tucson shootings, widely and rightfully praised, also exemplifies a rhetoric of balance. But the op-ed piece will also serve, in part because it will not receive the same attention as the Arizona speech.

The essay's appearance in the WSJ can be seen as an act of balance, since that newspaper represents business, conservative thought and the Republican Party in a way that parallels, say, the New York Times on the other side. (I note, for a later discussion, that both favor a perspective and yet are respected as examplars of journalism.) Obama's move toward the right can be seen, again, as a betrayal of the left. Yet, as he points out, it need not be so.

He begins by favoring "America's free market" and "entrepreneurialism," but then balances it with regulation. "... one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance." He carries this rhetorical balance throughout the speech. Let me point out a couple of examples:

preserved freedom ... applied rules and regulations to protect

embraced common sense rules of the road ... without unduly interfering with the pursuit

Even within those sentences, in parts not quoted, one can find a further balancing of ideas.

In the next section he talks about imbalance - and balances the imbalances: they can be too much ("placing unreasonable burdens on business") or too little ("failing to meet ... responsibility to protect the public interest").

He draws a parallel between the historic pursuit of balance, which have sought "throughout our history" and the goal of his administration. His executive order embeds his - and American history's - quest for "the right balance" into the regulatory code, and thus the way we do business.

Trying to "ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth" may seem quixotic, but with so many other examples, Obama's vision can be described as a drive toward equilibrium.

Here's another example: Speaking of the new fuel-economy standards, Obama declares it a "victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution." car companies: consumers; security: environment. This is a double balance.

It's easy to see Obama's preference for balance as a weakness, as a dependence on compromise, or as something else altogether. But when we see one device returned to at so many critical moments, and relied on so heavily to carry the the logic, argument and emotion, then we ought to look more closely not just at how the rhetoric works, or even what it means, but how that rhetoric creates meaning - how it expresses a vision.

I would offer this as a preliminary observation: Obama sees progress and the "general welfare" of the Constitution emerging from harmonizing opposites. Victory does not equal conquest and conflict, ideally, an oscillation toward consensus and cooperation. If "our economy is not a zero-sum game," neither is life.