No True Democrat, No True Republican
Article Tools
-
7
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Is there such a thing?
Through this political election there has been much discussion related to who holds responsibility for the current state of the union. When blame is placed on one party or another, the common response is “they are not a true Democrat” or “they are not a true Republican.” That leads me to question the word “true” and the fallacy committed by using it to invalidate someone’s argument. What set of premises do you conclude someone is a true Republican or Democrat with? Each party has changed through time and adopted new platforms with the revolving state of the union. So, if this is a ever changing definition, then how do you adopt “true” into it?
I find this question most appropriately answered by “ Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?” The author, Anthony Flew, coined a phrase “no true Scotsman.” In Mr. Flew’s book, a character uses an ad hoc change to support an assertion. He also shifts the meaning of words used in the original assertion. The premise is that a Scotsman sits down with his paper and sees a shocking article about a sex maniac. He declares “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down with another newspaper and sees an article about a Scotsman that committed much more heinous acts than the sex maniac. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he says “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
So he has used an ad hoc shift in argument to redefine the definitions boundaries as debatable. He did this by changing his fixed definition of a Scotsman to the specific case being fixed. You can substitute the term Scotsman to Republican or Democrat and come to the same conclusion.
Commenter A states: “A Republican would never vote for Senator Obama.” Commenter B states: “I have been a registered Republican for 30 years and I voted for him.” Commenter A states that “you are not a true Republican.” First of all commenter A is assuming that Republican principles are fixed and not inclusive or elusive. Then, the commenter redirects his fixed definition of Republican to the person being a fixed case.
Although the user of the “true” argument is trying to discredit what the other person is saying, I believe the real fallacy here is in their own argument. The person that says “no true republican/ democrat would do such” is actually discrediting their own argument. Very few things in life are so exclusive and parameterized that they are “true.”
4 Comments
Great political piece Jo. There are aspects of both parties that can seem appealing during election time. Right now, however, I believe that the government had been Republican way to long. Look at the state of the economy, do we really want it to continue?
Thank you Lauren. I too am drawn to each party for different reasons. Neither party seems to encompass a majority of my stances. So, I often find myself picking the best alternative
You are so right about the economy. I just am not sold that neither BO or McCain are the people that will solve it. I had faith that Romney or Clinton could, but that is a lost cause now. Thanks for the comment buddy.
I have my doubts too, about both parties but I have hope Obama will do better than the republicans have done in recent years. I am afraid he won’t be elected and we will keep on the same path to our ruin. The republicans already have us in the worst depression since the 30’s.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, while Republicans and Democrats can, as individuals, align themselves however they wish, their are a set of underlying Conservative or Liberal principles that do communicate where a person stands. One assumes, as a Republican, you will most often align yourself with a Conservative philosophy – Democrats will align with a Liberal philosophy. When an individual politician departs from these core principles, that is when people naturally use the phrase, “He is no…” to indicate that a candidate has divaricated away from commonly held ideals. You have gotten hung up on the semantics and fail to address the underlying principles involved.
And to Ruby I would add that yes, it is all the Republicans fault because naturally the Democratic controlled Congress has nothing to do with the economy! Of course an editorial from the Investor’s Business Daily found here: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102 may lead thinking people to believe otherwise.