[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.
