. . . perhaps a clever way of saying, well, BS? Let’s look at some examples from Cathcart and Klein’s reading:

• Sharpshooter fallacy. George W. Bush supported large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans early in his first term. The tax cuts, combined with two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and an unfunded expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs, led to enormous increases in the national debt. The economy suffered a mild recession after the attacks of 9/11. When the president was criticized for his economic policies, he responded ‘well imagine how the economy would be if we hadn’t taken action to cut taxes.’ No proof that taxes had been cut–instead a claim that they had prevented disaster. The policy worked!
• Ignoring the issue. Former Sec. of State Donald Rumsfeld argued that Iraq was a more appropriate venue than Afghanistan to wage a ‘war on terror,’ because Afghanistan ‘had no targets.’ As Colin Powell later said that would be like invading Mexico in response to the attacks on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Air Force. Rumsfeld avoids the entire debate of war and conflict, shifting the focus to where the ‘targets’ suggest prospects for success. This was likely more effective because there had been a steady drumbeat toward Iraq as an enemy since the first Gulf War, after 10 years of economic sanctions against what was perceived by the US commercial press as an anti-American dictatorship (remember that as many as 135,000 Iraqis died in the first Gulf War, compared to some 294 US troops, 35 to ‘friendly fire’).
• Argument from ignorance. Making claims that something exists, because no one has proven that it doesn’t exist. WMDs, anyone?
• False dilemma. We’ve discussed this as one of the linchpins of pre-persuasion. As George W. Bush said before and during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.’ Obviously there are other options (‘I’m against terrorism, but I don’t believe your policies are moral or effective. I’m against terrorism, but also against torture and detention without due process.’ Etc.). The Support our Troopsribbons (on car bumpers) were another good example. In other words, if you don’t support our policy, you’re not supporting our troops. I knew of very few people who didn’t support the troops, but many people, including some percentage of soldiers, were opposed to policies being developed by civilians in Washington, DC. This is not partisan either. Imagine an environmental group asking people through direct mail campaigns, ‘do you support us, or do you support the slaughter of nature?’ Are there not middle positions here??
• Weasel words. Another term for spin. The authors have some great examples (the first three):

Real world examples of weasel words include ‘death tax’ versus ‘estate tax,’ ‘smart bomb’ versus ‘weapon of mass destruction,’ ‘tax cuts’ versus ‘tax relief,’ ‘deregulation’ versus ‘regulatory relief,’ ‘non-economic jury awards’ versus ‘lawsuit abuse,’ the ‘pro-life’ versus ‘pro-choice’ debate, Department of War versus Department of Defense, Death Camp versus Concentration Camp (the Nazis tried to convince the German public that Jews were being placed in ‘concentration camps’ to provide them with ‘protective custody’).

• Weak analogy. Health care reform represents government takeover. If we ban cigarettes, we have to ban automobiles, stairs, guns, etc. They all cause harm. Glenn Beck’s specialty is incendiary historical analogy (specializes in comparing Barack Obama to Hitler).

Frankfurt and ‘bullshit’

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt makes a series of arguments, in an effort to make BS a useful concept. Considering some of what we’ve talked about this term, about the fluff and junk that increasingly populate ‘serious’ news, his words seem prophetic:

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it.

Some of Frankfurt’s points stand out:

• Our society is characterized in many ways by the amount of bullshit it produces (think about who produces bullshit, what it is, and how it’s produced and consumed)
• Bullshit is different than lying, and part of that difference is an indifference to or disregard for the truth. Different than lying, in some ways more corrosive to public debate, especially when commercial news seems immune to spotting it.
• Politicians or others who have heavy demands placed upon them to speak in public will run out of things to say and eventually fill up the space with, yes, bullshit. Examples? Here’s onefrom Donald Rumsfeld (that also gets at differences between lying and bullshit). It isn’t enough to say that all politicians run at the mouth to demonstrate an understanding of this.
• Frankfurt cites a poem from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

In the elder days of art
Builders wrought with greatest care
Each minute and unseen part,
For the Gods are everywhere.

What does it mean and how does it apply here?

• How does sincerity fit in here? Frankfurt talks about it. It’s especially germane to the local TV news ratings formula, but for any sort of televised news as well. Can sincerity be manufactured?
• Frankfurt was making a case for the study of bullshit, so his essay doesn’t focus so much on the potential consequences of so much bullshit (and here it’s important to distinguish between different kinds of bullshit and the different sets of purveyors, or even industries, that produce it).

• Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. 2007.  Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington. NY: Abrams Image.
• Harry Frankfurt. 1986. On Bullshit. Raritan Quarterly Review, 6(2): 81–100. (now a book published by Princeton University Press)