At least have a basic knowledge of the rules of logic and the fallacies of debate. There are many books and websites, including vivid and humorous demonstration of illogical demagoguery, Logic and Mr. Limbaugh, by Ray Perkins, Jr. (Chicago: Open Court, 1995); Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies: <http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm>; Fallacy Files: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/resource.html; and Logic and Fallacies (in English, Spanish, and Portuguese) at <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>. Some colleges offer courses on logic, rhetoric and debate.
There is a vast difference between conspiracist theory and complex structural research and strategic analysis. Avoid and counter misleading oversimplification such as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” arguments implicit in left-right alliances.
Resist fad analysis and language. Don’t use language (e.g. “underclass,” “illegitimate children,” “ethnic cleansing,” “surgical strikes,” “low intensity conflict,” “radical right extremists” “lunatic fringe”) that is often created for propaganda purposes and can be counterproductive to the case you are trying to make.
Sometimes things are gray, not black or white. For example, the more overt political intervention of the National Endowment for Democracy doesn’t mean covert CIA intervention has stopped. U.S. intervention isn’t all military in one era, all economic in another. It’s a changing mix with a long history. Sometimes it is useful to say the situation is unclear or that there are several possible outcomes.
Don’t exaggerate. Just rely on a strong argument and good research.
Investigative reporting and strategic research took a detour during the probe of the Iran–Contra affair. Because the executive branch was engaged in a coverup, and Congress refused to demand a full accounting, speculation about conspiracies blossomed, even within progressive circles. There certainly are conspiracies afoot in the halls of government and the cubicles of private industry. Prosecutors who present their evidence to a judge or jury routinely succeed in documenting illegal conspiracies. The burden of proof can be high, as it should be in a democracy.
Journalists frequently document conspiracies, and their published or broadcast charges can be tested against standards of journalistic ethics and sometimes in court in cases of alleged defamation involving libel or slander. But coverage of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in recent years has routinely violated common journalistic practices regarding second sourcing. A theory that cannot be documented, or for which there is only one source of questionable credibility, is a rumor--not investigative journalism. Many of the news stories about alleged misdeeds of President Clinton were little more than gossip.
The Internet is awash with conspiracy theories; and they were a key feature of the armed citizens militias. A central conspiracy theory in the Christian Right is that liberal secular humanists are plotting to destroy the family and the nation. Conspiracy theories are rooted in illogical thinking, and manipulative propaganda frequently attempts to sweep people past logic into emotional responses.
Flaws of Logic, Fallacies of Debate
With so much political and journalistic confusion it is useful to remember that academia has produced a long list of useful tools and techniques to evaluate the logical and conceptual validity of any argument regardless of political content or viewpoint.
Useful rational standards by which to judge the merits of any statement or theory are easily found in textbooks on debate, rhetoric, argument, and logic. These books discuss which techniques of argumentation are not valid because they fail to follow the rules of logic. There are many common fallacious techniques or inadequate proofs:
Raising the volume, increasing the stridency, or stressing the emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity. This is called argument by exhortation. It is often a form of demagoguery, bullying or emotional manipulation.
Sequence does not imply causation. If Joan is elected to the board of directors of a bank on May 1, and Raul gets a loan on July 26, further evidence is needed to prove a direct or causal connection. Sequence can be a piece of a puzzle, but other causal links need to be further investigated.
Congruence in one or more elements does not establish congruence in all elements. Gloria Steinem and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick are both intelligent, assertive women accomplished in political activism and persuasive rhetoric. To assume they therefore also agree politically would be ludicrous. If milk is white and powdered chalk is white, would you drink a glass of powdered chalk?
Association does not imply agreement; hence the phrase “guilt by association” has a pejorative meaning. Association proves association; it suggests further questions are appropriate, and demonstrates the parameters of networks, coalitions, and personal moral distinctions, nothing more. Tracking association can lead to further investigation that produces useful evidence, but a database is not an analysis and a spiderweb chart is not an argument. The connections may be meaningful, random, or related to an activity unrelated to the one being probed.
Participation in an activity, or presence at an event, does not imply control.
Similarity in activity does not imply joint activity and joint activity does not imply congruent motivation. When a person serves in an official advisory role or acts in a position of responsibility within a group, however, the burden of proof shifts to favor a presumption that such a person is not a mere member or associate, but probably embraces a considerable portion of the sentiments expressed by the group. Still, even members of boards of directors will distance themselves from a particular stance adopted by a group they oversee, and therefore it is not legitimate to assume automatically that they personally hold a view expressed by the group or other board members. It is legitimate to assert that they need to distance themselves publicly from a particular organizational position if they wish to disassociate themselves from it.
Anecdotes alone are not conclusive evidence. Anecdotes are used to illustrate a thesis, not to prove it. A good story–teller can certainly be mesmerizing—consider Ronald Reagan—but if skill in story–telling and acting is the criteria for political leadership, Ossie Davis would have been president, not Ronald Reagan. This anecdote illustrates that anecdotes alone are not conclusive evidence, even though most progressives would think that Davis would have been a kindler, gentler president than Reagan.
Techniques of the Propagandist
In 1923 Edward L. Bernays wrote the book Crystallizing Public Opinion and later, in 1928, the text Propaganda, considered seminal works in the field. “There is propaganda and what I call impropaganda,” said the 98–year–old Bernays impishly, a few years prior to his death. Propaganda originally meant promoting any idea or item, but took on its current pejorative sense following the extensive use of sinister propaganda for malicious goals during World War I and World War II.
While all persuasion uses the techniques of traditional propaganda, what Bernays called “impropaganda” is “using propaganda techniques not in accordance with good sense, good faith, or good morals...methods not consistent with the American pattern of behavior based on Judeo–Christian ethics.”
Bernays, who is called the “father of public relations,” was worried about the increased use of “impropaganda” in political campaigns and spoke out against it. “Politicians who use techniques like these lose the faith of the people,” said Bernays.
In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short–lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Alfred McClung Lee, Institute director from 1940–42, and his wife Elizabeth Briant Lee, co–authors of The Fine Art of Propaganda, Social Problems in America, wrote an article in the periodical Propaganda Review in which they suggested educating the public about propaganda techniques was an urgent priority. The Lees also discussed the Institute’s symbols for the seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist:
- Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea, symbolized by a hand turning thumbs down;
- Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods, symbolized by an ace of spades, a card signifying treachery;
- Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like us thinks this way, symbolized by a marching bandleader’s hat and baton;
- Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with an idea, symbolized by a seal and ribbon stamp of approval;
- Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are linked to “people just like you and me,” symbolized by an old shoe;
- Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea or commodity being discussed, symbolized by a smiling Greek theater mask;
- Glittering Generality: an association of something with a “virtue word” to gain approval without examining the evidence; symbolized by a sparkling gem.
The Institute’s last newsletter reflected that “in modern society an element of propaganda is present in a large portion of human affairs...people need to be able to recognize this element even when it is serving ‘good’ ends.”
Visit the Political Research Associates (PRA) web page on logic and propaganda at: http://www.publiceye.org/research/logic.html.
Books explaining the logical fallacies can be found in most libraries. A vivid and humorous exposé of illogical demagoguery is Ray Perkins, Jr., Logic and Mr. Limbaugh, (Chicago: Open Court, 1995).