Debate What?

"Blow ups and Bombers"
blog entry from Counterpunch

by Alexander Cockburn

In Counterpunch, a left leaning blog edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St.Clair, Mr. Cockburn wrote a blog entitled Blow Ups and Bombers. In it, he criticizes the third candidates’ debate, in summation stating that both candidates failed to address the worldwide economic crisis, instead retreating “to mechanical reiteration of their tax plans, their health plans, their plans for Energy Independence…”. Mr. Cockburn then changes from a very balanced criticism to a direct attack on Sen. McCain; first smearing his education, then quoting an e-mail sent to his blog by a “medical researcher” that assesses his current health in terms that paint a very negative picture. Following a few plugs for his newsletter, Mr. Cockburn concludes that the current financial disaster gives the left the best opportunity since the depression to gain control of the government.

Mr. Cockburn’s first point, that of debate criticism, while image laden, does a good job at illustrating the importance of the current financial catastrophe, and how disappointing it is that the candidates failed to adequately address the issue. Mr. Cockburn uses several verifiable facts to back up his argument, and combined with the emotional appeal he calls for with his imagery, creates a compelling argument for a high level of attention that should be applied to the financial crisis. From there he looses balance, and his left leanings show through. Because this is a blog for the more liberal minded, the criticisms against McCain are suited to the audience, but the tactics that he uses are somewhat underhanded.

First, he mentions McCain’s education, implying that because he graduated low in his class, he must somehow be deficient mentally, without taking into consideration how difficult or prestigious the school was that McCain graduated from. Second, he attacks McCain’s appearance, and uses a quote from a source that sounds authoritative to substantiate that McCain is ill, and therefore not fit for the White House.

Both of these arguments contain two obvious logical fallacies. The first is an abusive ad hominem, which is when the arguer uses attacks on the person’s character or physical appearance to discredit his/her position, which Mr. Cockburn utilizes in both the school statement and the health statement. He also uses an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam. These types of appeals are not always fallacious, as when a doctor whose focus is respiratory states, “Smoking is bad for the lungs.” This authority figure has the proper experience to argue against smoking. The “medical researcher” that Mr. Cockburn uses as his authority is somewhat suspect, and leads one to question the researcher’s credibility.

Mr. Cockburn’s conclusion that the left has an opportunity to gain control of the White House has some merit, although his argument for this case is weak. Historically speaking, during times of great upheaval in economic or societal issues, the US goes through a realignment of power, where one party gives way to the other. Certain key issues, such as the financial crisis, the several wars the US are engaged in, and the continual development of civil rights point towards such a time of change. Mr. Cockburn could have presented a more solid argument, without the use of fallacious methods, and still have made the same points.