Lessons in Logic #1: The Straw Man

The Straw Man is a logic fallacy that you probably see all of the time, but often don't notice. In using a Straw Man, one person redefines, distorts, misrepresents, or exaggerates another's statement or argument in a way that is much easier to attack than what was actually said. If you got into a fight with a large guy who works as a bouncer at a local bar, it is easier to fight a plastic blow-up doll that looks a lot like him than to actually have to fight the real guy. That's what's going on with the straw man. An argument that is hard to refute is replaced with a similar-looking argument that is much easier to refute.

Let me devise an illustration to explain how this works. Imagine two men running for city council against each other, in tough economic times: Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith states that revenues are down, while expenses are rising. The city is facing some difficult decisions on how to provide the services they are responsible for without going over budget. He suggests that a couple expensive road projects be put on hold for a year or two, and the roads be patched rather than replaced. Mr. Jones responds by stating that Mr. Smith would have us drive on bumpy dirt roads like those found in backwards third-world countries in order to save a buck.

You see, Mr. Jones distorted what Mr. Smith said.

The Straw Man is a favorite tactic in politics. It's also used in discussions of Faith. As Christians, we are called to hate sin. We understand that sin not only violates God's will and is an act of rebellion against Him, but that it is also harmful. However, pagans often Straw Man Christians by stating that we also hate those who commit sins. I'm getting close to crossing into another fallacy that I'll address in another lesson: the Ad-Hominem, but this often is a Straw Man. Have you ever been called a Homophobe for agreeing with the Bible's prohibition against homosexuality? Simply calling you a homophobe in this instance is ad-hominem, but stating that Christianity is wrong because Christians hate homosexuals is a Straw Man. Christians who believe and follow the Bible don't hate anyone. In fact, we love our fellow man so much that we want them to repent of all of their sins in order to avoid the consequences of those sins. Stating that we hate anyone sets up a Straw Man, as our culture has rightly determined that hatred is wrong.

I see Straw Man arguments every day in the current political debate on health care. Republicans (or Conservatives and Libertarians) are painted as hating children and wanting old people to die because they oppose Universal Health Care. I don't know a single Conservative/Libertarian that wants anyone to die. In fact, there are many great ideas out there about how to address the problems caused by a portion of society not having health insurance. These ideas address the root causes of rising health care costs, such as tort reform, overzealous mandates, restricted markets, and the inevitable consequences of shifting costs to third-party payers. However, those ideas are very difficult to address logically, so the opposition simply distorts and attacks the distortions.

As a Libertarian, I face Straw Men all the time in regards to my own most basic political views. As a Christian, I believe in the inherent corruption of mankind. All men are sinners, and all are (to varying degrees) wicked. As such, I have a deep respect for the U.S. Constitution – as written. The limitations placed on government, especially the Federal Government, are crucial to the survival of a free nation. I grant that free people sometimes use their freedom for nefarious purposes. However, I also believe that elected officials not only have the ability to use their power for nefarious purposes, but are generally prone to do so. As such, I share the views of most of our nation's Founders that such power needs to be strictly limited. Often times issues arise that present elected officials with the opportunity to increase their power under the guise of providing for a perceived social need. Many times they can get the people to go along with it, even when the programs that result are in direct violation of the Constitutional limits on government power. When discussing my views with people lean (or stand) on the left side of the political spectrum, and even with some “moderate conservatives”, I am often Straw Manned. Because I believe in limiting the Federal Government, they like to paint me as being against having a government at all. Of course that is not the case. Government is a necessary evil, and has legitimate purposes. Such include: punishing serious crimes (murder, fraud, rape, etc – though most serious crimes are best handled at the State level), enforcing contracts, providing for national defense, protecting interstate commerce, and others. With some, government is painted as all-or-none. Either we have a totalitarian system where government has absolute power, or we have complete anarchy. Granted, I'd rather live under a system of anarchy, where I have to provide my own defense and enforce my own contracts, but that doesn't mean that is the system I find to be ideal. Rather than taking the time to learn what I believe, many find it easier to jump to assumptions (Straw Men) and engage me on those terms.

Next Lesson: The Red Herring.