Ad Captandum Vulgus

      For the longest time now, a niggling, indefinable, "can't-exactly-put-my-finger-on-it" something has been tying my kishkes in knots. And believe me, as anyone who has ever been afflicted with Crohn's Disease will understand, knotted kishkes are the last thing in the world one needs or wants.

      This niggling discomfort began shortly after the 111th Congress convened back in January, and has gotten progressively worse with each passing month.  It has been a chronic condition with occasional acute spikes. Regrettably, until just a few days ago, I have had neither the time nor the talent to determine its precise cause.  Oh I knew that it had a lot to do with all those conservative chatterboxes I listen to while driving from lecture to lecture. But it was more than just that; the fact that guys like Limbaugh, Hannatty, Savage, Beck et al disagree with everything the president or congressional Democrats propose is nothing new.  This couldn't possibly be the source of my malady. So what was it?

    Well, late the other night, while making the long, exhaustive jaunt home after delivering six lectures in three days, I decided to confront this distress head-on in an attempt to discover its source.  By the time I reached my front door, I had fairly well figured it out.  What was bugging me; what was making me seethe like a copper kettle and giving me a nasty case of what old Doc Lipton called the "Flying  Whipsidingles," could be summed up in a single six-letter word:

    M-O-T-I-V-E.

   Yes, motive.  What I finally figured out was that both my agony and my anger were being caused by listening to so many members of the "media" elite attack the motives -- if not the character -- of those with whom they violently disagree.  It is one thing to opine that those who want to close down Guantanamo and hold trials on American soil are wrong; it is another to accuse them of consciously being allied with these terrorists.  It is one thing to strongly disagree with any or all of the various health care reform measures currently being discussed in Congress,; it is quite another to baldly state that "Democrats want nothing more than to strip away our freedoms and bring Socialism -- or "Communism," or "Nazism" to America."  Then too, it is one thing to hold fast to a belief that the single best way to cure the country's economic woes is to enact tax cuts for the wealthy, and quite another to damn those who disagree by proclaiming that "They hate America and want to bring the country to its knees."  This is not argumentation based on fact; it is a bald-faced assault on the motives, the sincerity -- indeed, the very humanity -- of one's opposition.  In rhetorical terms, what they are doing is called ad captandum vulgus -- "capturing the crowd" through unsound, specious arguments.  An ad captandum vulgus argument declares that "we all know that this is the truth," even when what we "all know" is anything but. 

       Years ago Monty Python brilliantly parodied an ad captandum statement: "I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired . . . I'm certainly not!  But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am . . ."  

        When the self-anointed archangels of the airwaves gut those with whom they disagree by impugning their motives, they are engaging in a most seductive form of casuistry.  It is beyond disconcerting to hear someone proclaim oh so matter-of-factly that President Obama's various proposals and appointments are motivated solely by a desire to "bankrupt," "enslave" and "ultimately destroy" the United States of America.  First of all, none of these idiotic charges are true.  Secondly, how in the world do these mavens know what motivates Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Timothy  Geithner, Michael Moore -- or Mary Tyler Moore -- for that matter?  It is both dangerous and diabolic to impute and impugn the motives of public figures.  For not only are those who do so giving the vulgus -- the "common clay," the "crowd" -- the sense that they are now uniquely empowered with "the truth"; they are also turning the vulgus into a potentially malignant mob. 

        Running hand-in-glove with argumentum ad captandum is argumentum ad hominem -- an argument in which one attacks a person's character rather than the content of their point of view.  Sometimes the ad hominem is done obliquely; the other day one of the talkmeisters dismissed any thought, opinion or bit of research ever done by liberal Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh simply by referring to him as "The insane, drug-addled Seymour Hersh."  Other times, argumentum ad hominem can hit you right between the eyes; in responding to  negative statements made by the Rev. Al Sharpton about his potentially becoming a limited owner of the St. Louis Rams, Rush Limbaugh, spoke not on point, but rather about how Sharpton had "come to fame and fortune in the infamous Tawana Brawley case." (In this widely publicized 1987 case, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year old African American girl, accused 6 white men of rape -- some of whom were police officers.  The Rev. Sharpton was among those who came to her defense.  A series of investigations brought her credibility into question; in all likelihood, no rape ever took place.) 

        Sometimes it is hard not to presume knowledge of what motivates another person.  Sometimes it is terribly difficult not to dismiss a person's opinion or argument with an attack on their character -- or lack thereof.  I do presume that that which motivates most of the guys and gals behind the mikes and cameras is profit, plain and simple.  Hell's bells, who among us wouldn't want to make $50 million dollars a year for working three hours a day, five days a week?  Then again, maybe they are motivated by something far less benign . . . but who am I to say? 

        If I could get the masters of ad captandum to pay heed for just a second, or two I would quote for them a little gem from Peter Pan's creator, James M. Barrie:

        "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." 

         You know something? My kishkes are beginning to feel better . . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Comments

[KFS to JDK]

Actually, I did offer up several quoted examples of chatterboxes impugning the motives of those with whom they so violently disagree. I did not feel the need to identify each one specifically; my readers know the score. Also, if you reread the essay, you will note that I really did not impugn their motives, but rather handled it -- I believe -- with a dash of humor. I do agree that "this" (meaning the impugning of motives on the part of ultra-conservatives) "would be comical if it weren't so tragic."

[JDK]

Never heard of you, but your 10-16 was sent to me by a friend. Here was my response to him:

He loses all credibility to me, Mort, by falling headfirst into his own trap: HE DOES NOT CITE ONE EXAMPLE OF THOSE HE IMPUGNS DOING WHAT HE ACCUSES THEM OF DOING, and he ROUNDLY IMPUGNS THEIR MOTIVES!

This would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

[Judi]

It is really so upsetting that there are NO discussions about ideas only vitriolic expressions by THEM. I can no longer watch our people except for Ed Schultz because I get so upset.

[Louis]

Don't you just love that Limbaugh has been rebuffed by NFL. Isray led the way. Now, Limbaugh thinks the NFL, and Its owners are liberal, and want to stamp out his ilk. Not a bad idea.

Just once I'd like for someone to challenge the talking heads to put a plan on any given matter they attack on the table.

Limbaugh should be challenged to use his money to fund a think tank to put forth a health care plan to be analyzed and critiqued.

[Alan Weiss]

Flying Whipsidingles! I've got them too. Ya got a pill for that?