As an elected official, I hold many truths to be self-evident….
Among them, elected officials should:
Treat all the citizens we serve with dignity and respect
Conduct our decision making openly
Make our records readily available to the public
Include citizens in our decision making
Run city hall as efficiently as possible
Minimize the tax burden
Protect and honor private property rights
Since these are widely held views, I rarely find that my disagreements with citizens last very long. Generally, I find that a candid discussion or a well-run public hearing, with the above truths in mind, will resolve just about any misunderstanding. The best part is, these truths will withstand a direct frontal attack by any other elected official, or group of officials. The truths are so fundamental to American culture that a public official would be a fool to argue against them openly. I would happily argue Renton’s cause on Capital Hill or the US Supreme Court, by standing on the above truths. No Senator or Supreme Court Justice could back me down.
But lately I have researched this question….what if an elected official did not necessarily agree with with me about these truths, or at least did not agree to put these truths ahead of other interests? In such a case, since these truths are capable of withstanding direct frontal argument, a more insidious approach to work around them would be necessary. Such an official could chose from a variety of time-proven misinformation approaches, such as a variation of the straw-man argument.
In this case the manipulative official would identify someone other than me who advocates loudly for all of the above truths, and then do everything possible to try to convince the public that the target (the straw man) is nothing more than evil. If the public will agree with the manipulative official that the straw man is evil, then all of the causes the straw man supports can then be assumed to be suspect. i.e. convince the public that the above truths are really just the ravings of the straw man, marginalize the straw man, and then you can then ignore the truths. The more you criticize and humiliate the target (straw man), the more likely you are to get the target to respond back in ways that seem irrational. It’s effective, and you can read about it by doing a google search or in wikipedia by clicking here . It works especially well if the target is somewhat vulnerable to begin with, and has only modest resources (e.g. a senior citizen on social security might be very effective).
The good news is that defeating the straw man argument is simple if you recognize it for what it is. You defeat the straw man argument by simply staying focused on the issue. You say,” I don’t care who else talked about this idea, I think it is a good idea /bad idea, and here is why.”
What you would not want to do is sign a letter saying “I hate the straw man too, and therefore sign me up as opposed to everything the straw man stands for.” Such a letter would only perpetuate the illogical straw man argument and confound further debate on the real issues. It may also leave others with the impression that you are opposed to the above truths.
