How About a Little Fire, Strawman?

Believe it or not, since the presidential elections, I've made a conscious effort to avoid blogging about politics (with a few minor exceptions) for three reasons. First, my opinions are seldom supported by factual evidence; therefore, they shouldn't change anyone else's opinions. Second, despite any evidence to the contrary, I try to be funny, and I know many readers of mine disagree with me politically, which can interfere with the yuk yuks. Third, it's often pointless since political discourse has consisted of the "yes to change" and "no to change" crowd arguing back and forth for centuries. Look at the Greeks. They bitched about the same basic stuff... only with togas and pederasty.

But then I have to listen to Mr. Employer blather on about politics, and it riles me up something fierce. It's not that I particularly care about what he says (I'm sympathetic to conservative political causes even if I have no tolerance for their social ones), it's his argument strategy. You would think as an Ivy League graduate (University of Pennsylvania) that he would not only be able to observe everyday logical fallacies, but that he might be able to avoid them most of the time as well. And yet, whenever Mr. Employer wants to talk politics, I am cordially introduced to his friend, Mr. Strawman.

Put simply, a strawman is an argument in which you portray your opponent in a laughably simplistic way and then argue against an exaggerated (or outright wrong) version of his or her position. The idea being that you've created a man made of straw, fought it, and declared victory while never touching your true opponent. For instance:
"We can't have cake for dessert. If we ate cake all day, we'd all get diabetes."
The strawman argument is essentially the grownup version of a parent telling a child, "If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" in response to a completely different request. Pundits or comedians sometimes use strawmen in a *wink wink* sort of way where they know it's absurd, but they're making a larger point. Mr. Employer, however, genuinely seems to believe in the ridiculous opponent he's trying to argue against.

A few days ago, he was arguing about the new health care plan. I don't pretend to understand it, and I'm sure it's riddled with flaws (many government programs are), but to hear him tell it, you'd think that Obama and his "socialist buddies" are deliberately working to overthrow American democracy as we know it. His basic argument:
"If this new health care system is implemented, we're going to have the same system as Canada, and that system has flaws X, Y, and Z."
From my limited understanding of the new health care proposals, there are some major differences between what the new health care plan and what Canada has. But still, look at his argument. He's not arguing against the new health care plan, he's bitching about Canada's. When I pointed this out, he wasn't pleased, but insisted, "We'd be well on our way to that sort of system in no time." In addition to inviting his relative Uncle Slippery Slope to his party of rhetorical fail, he doesn't seem to want to explore the social, economic, cultural, and political differences between the United States and Canada that might create a few differences in how our medical care might work.

In the world of Mr. Employer, all democrats are freedom-hating, dictatorial, socialist, business-challenged, minority-loving conspirators who are working to undermine the honest and true hard-working American businessman (i.e. him).** He does this bullshit all the time. Last week it was welfare reform. To hear him tell it, you'd think that everyone below the poverty line is an unethical, lazy, and mooching liar who will simply suckle the federal welfare tit for all eternity... and enjoy it! (Though who wouldn't enjoy eternal tit sucking, no matter how metaphorical it might be?) When I asked about, for instance, coal miners who work 12-hour days and still make shit for wages, he promptly started on a tirade about how the environmental whackos are keeping clean coal from revolutionizing our energy policy.

He drives me fucking mad when he's talking politics. Typically I don't argue with him because it's entirely pointless. Sometimes my silence leads to hilarious examples of overgeneralizations on his part. One time he was bitching about atheists and said, "Atheists really have no basis for their morality... they don't have a reference like you and me." My inner one-upper wanted so badly to scream, "I'M AN ATHEIST, YOU DUNDERHEAD!" But then I realized that he wasn't going to be convinced, and I'd only piss off my primary source of income. So as has become my mantra, I wisely remained silent.

Once again, I have no quarrel with conservative policies. I can appreciate the view even if I disagree with it. But if you want to argue, learn how to do it. Otherwise, do what I do and keep your mouth shut.

Unless you have a blog... then you can blather on for an eternity with your ill-informed opinions.

** Not to be confused with the opposing strawman that paints all Republicans as women-hating, money-grubbing, tree-burning, Bible-thumping, Klan members.

------------------------------------------
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein (apparently never having met Mr. Employer)