Civility Watchdog: President Barack Obama's 2015 SOTU

The following is a look at President Barack Obama's January 20, 2015, State of the Union speech, and some of the political tropes at play in it.


EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

"It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years and for decades to come. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort? Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet? Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another? Or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?"

Comment: These are platitudes. Of course people want an economy where everyone does well, a foreign policy that wisely manages conflicts, and a nation where people work together productively. The problem is that people have very different ideas about how to achieve those goals.

***

"In two weeks, I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan."

Comment: This remark is along the lines of "ideological" or "common sense" or "bipartisan" rhetoric. Partisanship is a result of disagreements about what ideas are practical or not. Does anyone support ideas that they think are impractical?

***

"America, Rebekah and Ben’s story is our story. … You are the reason that I ran for this office. You are the people I was thinking of six years ago today, in the darkest months of the crisis, when I stood on the steps of this Capitol and promised we would rebuild our economy on a new foundation. … And over the past five years, our businesses have created more than 11 million new jobs. We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. … And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save about $750 at the pump. We believed we could prepare our kids for a more competitive world. And today, our younger students have earned the highest math and reading scores on record. Our high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high. More Americans finish college than ever before. … At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years. This is good news, people. So the verdict is clear. Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work as long as politics don’t get in the way."

Comment: What evidence does Obama have that these accomplishments are the results of his policies, rather than the results of policies another president (or Congress) pushed for, or the result of forces outside the influence of the government? This seems like "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning — "it happened after I came into office, therefore it happened because I came into office" — which is flawed reasoning.

***

"We can’t put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance, or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street, or refighting past battles on immigration when we’ve got to fix a broken system. And if a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it. It will have earned my veto."

Comment: What is wrong with "refighting past battles"? When Obama came into office in 2009, he pushed for health care reform, comprehensive immigration reform, and a host of other causes that had been frequently discussed in politics. Was he wrong to "refight" these "past battles"? If it was OK for him to do so then, why can't his opponents do the same now? It can't be that "refighting past battles" is only OK depending on whether someone likes the result of those past battles.

***

"And in fact, at every moment of economic change throughout our history, this country has taken bold action to adapt to new circumstances and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot. We set up worker protections, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity. We gave our citizens schools and colleges, infrastructure and the Internet -- tools they needed to go as far as their effort and their dreams will take them. That’s what middle-class economics is -- the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the same set of rules. We don’t just want everyone to share in America’s success, we want everyone to contribute to our success."

Comment: It is a platitude to say that everyone should get a "fair shot" and "pay their fair share". While it might be true that legislation like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and so forth were passed with the intention of promoting fairness, there has been a lot of disagreement about whether these initiatives really are fair. And these disagreements have fallen along the usual lines: for instance, how do we treat people equally, how much aid do people deserve, and how much should everybody (including those receiving aid) be obligated to contribute in order to support others? In his numerous references to fairness, Obama does little to address these controversial details.

***

"And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise."

Comment: This is a straw man, as opponents of a minimum wage don't necessarily believe that $7.25 an hour (the current federal rate) is a living wage. Their objections often involve a belief that raising the minimum wage (say, to $10.10 an hour, as many propose) will lead to job losses or less hiring, or are based in broader objections to government price controls (which the minimum wage is a form of). Would Obama find it acceptable if someone said, "Mr. President, if you believe you can run a business that increases labor costs by about 40% without firing any employees, go try it. If not, don't vote for a minimum wage hike"? Or would he say that was an unfair caricature of his position?

***

"But you know, things like childcare and sick leave and equal pay; things like lower mortgage premiums and a higher minimum wage -- these ideas will make a meaningful difference in the lives of millions of families. That’s a fact. And that’s what all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, were sent here to do."

Comment: This is a poor argument. Republican ideas such as lowering tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and decreasing government regulation would also make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, so should Obama have to support them? The point is that there is a legitimate dispute about which policy changes are meaningful and beneficial overall, and Obama is glossing over that disagreement.

***

"Look, I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype, and that’s why we’ve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense. But 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders. We can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities. More than half of manufacturing executives have said they’re actively looking to bring jobs back from China. So let’s give them one more reason to get it done."

Comment: This sounds like a straw man. Who has said that they don't want overseas trade?

***

"As Americans, we don’t mind paying our fair share of taxes as long as everybody else does, too. But for far too long, lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes that let some corporations pay nothing while others pay full freight. They’ve riddled it with giveaways that the super-rich don’t need, while denying a break to middle-class families who do."

Comment: This is "Americans want" rhetoric. As I mentioned previously, there are substantial disagreements among Americans about what constitutes fairness in general, and a fair tax code in particular.

***

"My first duty as Commander-in-Chief is to defend the United States of America. In doing so, the question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military -- then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world. That’s what our enemies want us to do."

Comment: This seems like a straw man. Who has said that our first response should be to send in our military, and on which foreign policy challenge did they say it?

***

"In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for 50 years, it’s time to try something new."

Comment: Obama is claiming that the embargo on trade with Cuba is a failed policy, and that adaptation and adjustment rather than persistence is the right tactic.

***

"You know, just over a decade ago, I gave a speech in Boston where I said there wasn’t a liberal America or a conservative America; a black America or a white America -- but a United States of America. I said this because I had seen it in my own life, in a nation that gave someone like me a chance; because I grew up in Hawaii, a melting pot of races and customs; because I made Illinois my home -- a state of small towns, rich farmland, one of the world’s great cities; a microcosm of the country where Democrats and Republicans and Independents, good people of every ethnicity and every faith, share certain bedrock values. Over the past six years, the pundits have pointed out more than once that my presidency hasn’t delivered on this vision. How ironic, they say, that our politics seems more divided than ever. It’s held up as proof not just of my own flaws -- of which there are many -- but also as proof that the vision itself is misguided, naïve, that there are too many people in this town who actually benefit from partisanship and gridlock for us to ever do anything about it. I know how tempting such cynicism may be. But I still think the cynics are wrong. I still believe that we are one people. I still believe that together, we can do great things, even when the odds are long."

Comment: Obama is accusing his critics of being cynical, and indulging in "unify the country" rhetoric. He is also calling for a higher standard of debate. But, as is typical with such calls, he isn't admitting to any specific mistakes he has made, any particular acts of incivility. An important part of teaching people how to engage in civil debate is to point out failures in civil debate so people know to avoid them. But Obama is leaving listeners with the impression that he hasn't made any mistakes, or, at least, he isn't detailing any of his mistakes as a way of teaching others how to do a better job at civility and civil debate.

***

"So the question for those of us here tonight is how we, all of us, can better reflect America’s hopes. I’ve served in Congress with many of you. I know many of you well. There are a lot of good people here, on both sides of the aisle. … Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives. … If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country."

Comment: Again, this is another call to set a higher standard of political discussion, and to uphold civility and civil debate. But such a call is a platitude unless you give specifics about how it is we're supposed to be civil to one another. What concrete examples of demonizing does Obama think should be stopped? Will Obama admit to any instances of demonizing his opponents? Or does he think that it's only his opponents who resort to demonizing?

***

"I have no more campaigns to run. My only agenda -- I know because I won both of them."

Comment: It's not clear what Obama was trying to communicate with this comment. It's certainly true that he won two presidential elections — in 2008 and 2012 — but does that mean he believes he has a mandate to carry out his agenda? If so, how does the fact that his party, the Democrats, lost many congressional seats in the 2010 and 2014 midterms affect that mandate?

***

"Because I want this chamber, I want this city to reflect the truth -- that for all our blind spots and shortcomings, we are a people with the strength and generosity of spirit to bridge divides, to unite in common effort, to help our neighbors, whether down the street or on the other side of the world."

Comment: This is a call to unify the country and end divisiveness.

Civility Watchdog: Gov. Mitt Romney's Concession Speech

On November 7, 2012, Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) addressed his supporters while conceding defeat in his race against President Barack Obama [RCP Video and Transcript]. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work.

Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. What is Romney going to do to stop the "bickering" and "posturing"? These seem to be euphemisms for incivility, which is something Romney (and Obama) contributed to in the campaign with name-calling and distortion, demonizing, etc. Will Romney admit to what he's done wrong in order to foster good will? Or is this just more empty rhetoric -- typical of politicians and pundits -- in which they lament incivility in the abstract without owning up to specific instances of their own misbehavior?

***

We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify of the enduring principles upon which our society is built: honesty, charity, integrity and family.

Comment: Our politicians (and pundits) ought to exhibit these qualities, too. What did Romney do to exemplify them in his campaign? In particular, how did he demonstrate honesty and integrity in the form of civility? Currently, our political leaders are setting a bad example when it comes to civil debate, and Romney is a part of that. What's he going to do to change it?

***

And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.

Comment: This is more "unify the country" rhetoric, as well as "politicizing" rhetoric. What does it mean to "put people before politics"? Without specifics, isn't this an empty platitude? What is Romney himself going to do to put people before politics? Will he apologize for his acts of incivility during the campaign? Or is he just going to leave people with the impression that incivility is a problem created by someone other than himself (the "only my opponents" caricature)?

Civility Watchdog: President Barack Obama's Victory Speech

On November 7, 2012, President Barack Obama addressed his supporters while declaring victory in his race against Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) [CNN Transcript, RCP Video]. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

I just spoke with Governor Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign.We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future.

Comment: What does Obama mean when he says the campaign was "fierce"? And is he correct that "love of country" excuses that fierceness? My concern is that Obama is using "fierce" as a euphemism for "lacking in civility, dignity, and respect". Both Obama and Romney have resorted to incivility in the 2012 presidential election -- name-calling and distortion, demonizing, etc. Such behavior is unacceptable, and "love of country" is no excuse for it. If you care about something, you have an obligation to treat it with care. Treating the country with care means upholding civil debate, and discussing the political issues the nation faces without resorting to incivility.

***

In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.

Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. Will Obama admit and apologize for his acts of name-calling in order create an environment where both sides can "work together to move this country forward"? Will Romney?

***

Let me say this publicly: Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch the rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation's first lady.

Comment: This is "Americans want" rhetoric. Does the entire country love Michelle Obama? Aren't there some who dislike her, or are simply indifferent to her?

***

I know that political campaigns can sometimes seem small, even silly. And that provides plenty of fodder for the cynics that tell us that politics is nothing more than a contest of egos or the domain of special interests.

Comment: This is typical rhetoric about civility, in the sense that Obama is lamenting incivility in the abstract without owning up specifically to his own failings with respect to civil debate. Politicians and pundits frequently speak about civility in a way that leaves people with the impression that they themselves aren't part of the problem, that it's someone else who has to clean up their act (the "only my opponents" caricature). That's one of the reasons people are so cynical about politics in general and the possibility for civil debate in particular. Also, Obama himself has frequently railed against "special interests", but here it sounds like he's dismissing the influence of special interests.

***

That's why we do this. That's what politics can be. That's why elections matter. It's not small, it's big. It's important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

Comment: What does Obama mean by "noisy and messy and complicated"? Or by stirring "passions" and "controversy"? Again, my concern is he's using these as euphemisms, as another way of saying the campaign was uncivil. If that's what he's saying, he's right, it was an uncivil presidential campaign. And that is partly (though by no means entirely) his fault, and there is no excuse for it, and he's not making any apology for contributing to the incivility in the political arena.

***

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. ... That's the vision we share. That's where we need to go -- forward. That's where we need to go. Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. ... By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won't end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin.

Comment: Obama is correct that we frequently share the same goals but differ about which policies will do the best job of achieving those goals. (In other words, we often have the same moral priorities but disagree on empirical matters.) That's part of the problem with name-calling, because name-calling often amounts to distorting the people who disagree with you and making them out to be people who don't share the same values, describing them as people don't care about doing what's right. Again, in this speech, Obama isn't owning up to his misbehavior on that front. Will he any time soon? It's hard to see how people will get along with one another if the people who've caricatured them and mocked them refuse to apologize for doing so. Will Obama happily get along with Republicans who have demonized him, even if they don't apologize for it?

***

And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. ... I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We're not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

Comment: This is more "unify the country" rhetoric. We've long been the country that Obama describes, yet incivility persists. What will be different now? What is it that's going to change things and make us less divided? A newfound, self-critical commitment to civil debate? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Civility Watchdog: Rep. Paul Ryan's Address to Values Voter Summit

On September 14, 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) addressed the Values Voter Summit. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"[Lately President Barack Obama has] been trying out a new tactic. It’s a classic Barack Obama straw man: If anyone dares to point out the facts of his record, why then, they’re just being negative and pessimistic about the country. The new straw man is people hoping for the decline of America. … I want my children to make their own choices, to define happiness for themselves, and to use the gifts that God gave them and live their lives in freedom. Say things like this, and our opponents will quickly accuse you of being, quote, “anti-government.” President Obama frames the debate this way because, here again, it’s the only kind of debate he can win – against straw-man arguments. No politician is more skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries. Nobody is better at rebuking nonexistent opinions. Barack Obama does this all the time, and in this campaign we are calling him on it."

Comment: It's true that Republicans are sometimes accused of rooting for failure (though it's also true that some Republicans have made the same accusation about Democrats). And it's true that Obama does use straw men (i.e., caricatures and name-calling) against his opponents (though, once again, so do Republicans). Ryan, in other words, is using the "only my opponent" caricature against Obama (though it's true that Obama uses this against Republicans, too!). The "classic tactic" really on display here is to be outraged at misbehavior when your opponent does it, while giving yourself and your own side a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

***

"[President Barack Obama] treats private enterprise as little more than a revenue source for government. He views government as the redistributor and allocator of opportunity."

Comment: Isn't this a straw man? A caricature?

***

"Finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, President Obama likes to say, “We’re all in this together.” And here, too, he has another handy straw man. Anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. Who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves. “We’re all in this together” -- it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious. Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born. Giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue, and in complete disregard of millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party."

Comment: Again, it's true that Obama frequently caricatures Republicans as having no compassion or being unwilling to help others -- for instance, by calling them "Social Darwinists" -- but it's also a caricature to say that people who aren't pro-life when it comes to abortion are hypocrites when they say "we're all in this together". Abortion is a complicated moral dilemma involving moral standing and the extent of our duty to help others. The fact that someone supports the right to abortion doesn't mean they have no concern for others. A comparable distortion from the pro-choice side is to say that it's hypocritical for people who oppose abortion to also say they support women's rights. Ryan wouldn't accept that caricature, I'm sure, so he shouldn't be content to caricature others. This is also an example of "extremists" rhetoric.

***

"[GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is] solid and trustworthy, faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best."

Comment: Is the fact that someone has a good marriage a reason in favor of voting for them? Is somebody who has had (or is having) a divorce somehow a bad candidate for office? Is "vote for me because I have a happy family and marriage" (or something along those lines) a good argument? This gets into the issue of the relationship between character and politics.

***

"We know what we are up against. We know how desperate our opponents are to cling to power. But we are ready, and I hope you are too, because I know that we can do this. Whatever your political party, let’s come together for the sake of our country. Let’s put these divisive years behind us. Let’s give this effort everything we have. Let’s get this done, and elect Mitt Romney the next president of the United States."

Comment: It sounds like Ryan is implying that Democrats "will do anything to win". He is also using "unify the country" rhetoric without specifying what Obama has done to be divisive and what would be involved in uniting. For instance, if I don't accept the policies supported by Romney and Ryan, am I guilty of not "coming together for the sake of our country"?

Civility Watchdog: President Barack Obama's Address to Democratic National Convention

On September 6, 2012, President Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"I know that campaigns can seem small, and even silly. Trivial things become big distractions. Serious issues become sound bites. And the truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising. If you're sick of hearing me approve this message, believe me -- so am I."

Comment: Politicians frequently denounce campaign tactics in the abstract, without making any mention of whether they and their own campaign share any guilt. Apart from taking responsibility for being part of an "avalanche of advertising", this is what Obama is doing here. These kinds of denunciations in the abstract could be seen as implicitly making the "only my opponent" caricature: "I know there's a lot of misbehavior out there, but I'm not acknowledging that I'm engaging in any of it", which leaves your opponent as the most likely suspect. This might also be "unnamed antagonist" rhetoric.

***

"On every issue, the choice you face won't be just between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America. A choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future. Ours is a fight to restore the values that built the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known; the values my grandfather defended as a soldier in Patton's Army; the values that drove my grandmother to work on a bomber assembly line while he was gone. They knew they were part of something larger -- a nation that triumphed over fascism and depression; a nation where the most innovative businesses turned out the world's best products, and everyone shared in the pride and success -- from the corner office to the factory floor."

Comment: This seems like a derisive caricature. Is Obama saying that Republicans don't share the values that Americans (like General George S. Patton) had as they fought to defeat the Nazis in World War II? That they don't believe that they're part of something larger than themselves?

***

"[A]ll they [i.e., Republicans] have to offer is the same prescription they've had for the last thirty years: "Have a surplus? Try a tax cut." "Deficit too high? Try another." "Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning!""

Comment: Suppose someone said that all Democrats have to offer is the same policies they've offered for the last 30 years: "more spending, more regulations, call us in the morning"? Would that be a caricature? If so, isn't Obama's description of Republicans also a caricature?

***

"I don't believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy, or help us compete with the scientists and engineers coming out of China. After all that we've been through, I don't believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. We've been there, we've tried that, and we're not going back. We're moving forward."

Comment: This is a caricature of what Republicans believe. They believe that some spending on education is wasteful (for instance, that subsidizing college education helps drive up tuition), and they believe that some financial regulations do more harm than good. This is also "failed policies" rhetoric.

***

"Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can't do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can't afford health insurance, hope that you don't get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that's just the price of progress. If you can't afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent's advice and "borrow money from your parents.""

Comment: This is also a caricature. Republicans don't believe that government should do "almost nothing", that you should just hope you don't get sick if you don't have health insurance, that air pollution is just something you should put up with, or that if you need money you should borrow it from your parents. It's a caricature of the same sort as if someone were to say that Democrats don't believe people should pay anything for their own food, clothes, housing, or health care, that Democrats say it doesn't matter how many jobs are lost due to environmental regulations, or that Democrats say you should only rely on government for help and never on yourself or your family.

***

"You know what? That's not who we are. That's not what this country's about. As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights -- rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system -- the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known. But we also believe in something called citizenship -- a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations. … We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense."

Comment: Republicans don't believe in citizenship? They don't believe that we have obligations to one another and to future generations? Of course they believe that, they just disagree about how much of a role government should play in fulfilling those obligations. Obama is derisively distorting Republicans. Also, Obama seems to be implying that Republicans aren't real Americans or are somehow unpatriotic.

***

"But we don't think that government is the source of all our problems -- any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles."

Comment: This is another derisive caricature. Republicans don't believe that government is the source of all our problems any more than Democrats believe that government is the solution to all our problems. Nor do Republicans believe that welfare recipients, immigrants, etc., are the source of all our problems.

***

"If you reject the notion that this nation's promise is reserved for the few, your voice must be heard in this election. … if you believe in a country where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, then I need you to vote this November."

Comment: These are platitudes. Of course, we all believe that "America's promise" (whatever it is) should be for everyone, not just the few. However, Republicans and Democrats disagree about what policies do the best job of creating equal opportunity. And we all want fairness, we just disagree about what constitutes fairness and about which policies will attain it. To say otherwise is just derisive caricature.

Civility Watchdog: Vice President Joe Biden's Address to Democratic National Convention

On September 6, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden addressed the Democratic National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"Let me tell you about how Barack saved more than 1 million American jobs. In our first days in office, General Motors and Chrysler were on the verge of liquidation. If the President didn’t act immediately, there wouldn’t be an industry left to save."

Comment: This is at least an exaggeration, if not a distortion. It's far from clear that the U.S. auto industry would have disappeared if GM and Chrysler hadn't been bailed out: (1) Companies that go through bankruptcy don't necessarily go out of business, so GM and Chrysler might still have survived without a bailout; (2) Even if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business, there would still be Ford; (3) Besides Ford, there are many other car companies that have factories in the U.S., such as Toyota, Subaru, and Honda. These companies employ auto workers in the U.S., even if they aren't U.S. companies (much like Chrysler, which isn't a U.S. company anymore, either; post-bailout, it is now owned by Italy's Fiat).

***

"We listened to Senators, Congressmen, outside advisors, even some of our own advisors say -- we shouldn’t step in, the risks were too high, the outcome too uncertain. The President patiently listened. But he didn’t see it their way. He understood something they didn’t. He understood that this wasn’t just about cars. It was about the Americans who built those cars and the America they built."

Comment: It's a derisive distortion to say that people (for instance, GOP candidate Mitt Romney) who opposed the auto bailouts somehow didn't understand that this was an issue that affected real people and not just cars. Of course they understood that, but they disagreed about whether bailing out GM and Chrysler was the best course of action regarding a whole host of people.

***

"Let’s just say it straight: The two men seeking to lead this country over the next four years have fundamentally different visions, and a completely different value set."

Comment: Is this true? Obama and Romney have nothing in common when it comes to values? This isn't just an exaggeration?

***

"Governor Romney believes that kids-the kids we call DREAMers -- those immigrant children who were brought to America at a very young age, through no fault of their own -- he thinks they’re a drag on America."

Comment: This is another derisive distortion. There are reasons to oppose the DREAM Act that don't depend on viewing immigrants who were brought here illegally as children as "a drag on America". For instance, someone might agree with the proposal that military service should be sufficient to give DREAM Act children legal residence, but not with the proposal that going to college should render the same result.

***

"I told you the choice is stark. Two different visions. Two different value sets. And at its core, the difference is, we have incredible faith in the decency, and the hard work of the American people. And we know what has made this country great -- its people. … I’ve got news for Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan, it has never, never, ever, been a good bet to bet against the American people."

Comment: Republicans don't have faith in the decency and the hard work of the American people? That's just another derisive distortion. And, just because Romney and Ryan support different policies than Obama and Biden doesn't mean that they're somehow betting against the American people.

Civility Watchdog: President Bill Clinton's Address to Democratic National Convention

On September 5, 2012, former President Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"I want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American dream economy, driven by innovation and creativity, by education and, yes, by cooperation."

Comment: This is a platitude. We all want a president who will improve the economy via innovation, creativity, education and cooperation. The question is, what policies and what actions does that involve? That's where Democrats and Republicans disagree.

***

"Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. This Republican narrative, this alternative universe says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we’re all completely self-made. … We Democrats, we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it, with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. You see, we believe that "We’re all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "You’re on your own.""

Comment: Clinton is right that -- at their convention in Tampa, FL -- Republicans frequently caricatured Democrats as being opposed to free enterprise and individual initiative and wanting to make people dependent on government. But it's also a caricature for Clinton to say that Republicans believe that people are entirely self-made, that they never received any help to get them where they are. Rather, Democrats and Republicans both believe that individual effort and outside assistance play a role in our success, but the disagree with how much of a role they each play, and how much of a role government does and should play. It's a caricature to say that the Republican philosophy is "you're on your own", just as it would be a caricature to say that the Democratic philosophy is "you don't have to work or pay taxes, government will pay your bills for you". Responding to name-calling with more name-calling isn't a good way to uphold civility.

***

"You see, we believe that "We’re all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "You’re on your own." … We know that investments in education and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase growth. They increase good jobs, and they create new wealth for all the rest of us."

Comment: These are also platitudes. Everyone believes that we're all in this together, but we disagree about the details of our obligations: such as our obligations to take care of others, to be fair, and to be self-sufficient (so that we are not an unnecessary burden on others). And we all think we should invest in education and infrastructure, etc. The question is, what are good ways of investing in these things, so that we avoid spending money wastefully on them? That's where Republicans and Democrats disagree.

***

"So who’s right? Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two. … Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic."

Comment: This is faulty reasoning, of the "false causation" variety. Just because job growth was better while Democrats were president doesn't mean job growth was better because Democrats were president. Another problem with this argument is that not all Democratic presidents enact the same economic policies (just like not all Republican presidents enact the same economic policies). Last, but not least, presidents don't control economic policy by themselves. On any number of economic issues -- such as federal taxation and spending -- they have to collaborate with Congress, and Congress is often not of the same party as the president. Clinton, for instance, was president for eight years, six of which had Republicans in control of Congress. Should Democrats get praise or blame for the economic news during those six years, since Clinton was a Democratic president, or should Republicans get praise or blame for the economic news during those six years, since they controlled Congress? Do Republicans get credit for "arithmetic"? (The same mistake was made in a chart about presidents and debt not long ago.) In summary, Clinton's argument makes only half the correlation between parties and job growth, and, in any event, correlation doesn't imply causation.

***

"Now, there’s something I’ve noticed lately. You probably have, too. And it’s this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats. … And every one of us -- every one of us and every one of them, we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time, and hopefully we’re right more than twice a day. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness."

Comment: This is the "only my opponent" caricature. Both Republicans and Democrats routinely resort to name-calling and say hateful things about their opponents. And each side routinely complains that they have been too accommodating to the other party and not tough enough with them, and that the other party never admits its faults. There is so much invective coming from each party that it is, in practical terms, impossible to figure out which party does it more.

***

"And here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good, but what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation."

Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. How are we supposed to transcend our divisions? What sorts of behavior will bring that about? As often as people say they want to unify, they frequently keep resorting to name-calling and caricature, which tends to thwart efforts at unification, right?

***

"Because -- because in order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn’t say very much about the ideas they’ve offered over the last two years. They couldn’t, because they want to go back to the same, old policies that got us in trouble in the first place."

Comment: This is "failed policies" rhetoric.

***

"But I am telling you, the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true. But they keep on running ads claiming it. You want to know why? Their campaign pollster said, “We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Now, finally I can say: That is true. I -- I -- I couldn’t have said it better myself."

Comment: First, this is the "big lie" caricature, claiming that your opponent "doesn't care about the truth". Second, the pollster Clinton refers to is Neil Newhouse, who actually said, "These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Newhouse may have been guilty of ad hominem reasoning in this comment, but he wasn't saying that facts don't matter. As such, Clinton is misrepresenting what Newhouse said. If the distortion of Obama's position on welfare reform is proof that Republicans don't care at all about truth, do distortions coming from Democrats prove that they don't care at all about truth?

***

"If you want -- if you want America -- if you want every American to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures just -- just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority, and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama."

Comment: Claiming that Republicans support voter ID laws so that they can disenfranchise minorities and other groups that support Democrats is demonizing. It's just as much of a derisive caricature as when Republicans say that Democrats oppose voter ID laws because they want fraudulent voters to help them win elections.

***

"Don’t you ever forget, when you hear them talking about this, that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four."

Comment: This is a derisive caricature, of the "stupid" variety, implying that Republicans don't accept basic math.

Civility Watchdog: Mayor Julian Castro's Keynote Address to Democratic National Convention

On September 4, 2012, Mayor Julian Castro (D-San Antonio) gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"Now, in Texas, we believe in the rugged individual. Texas may be the one place where people actually still have bootstraps, and we expect folks to pull themselves up by them. But we also recognize there are some things we can't do alone. We have to come together and invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow."

Comment: This is a platitude. Republicans, like Democrats, agree that there are some things people can't do alone and need government for. But they disagree with Democrats on which things people need government for, and how government should provide certain things. To say otherwise is a derisive distortion.

***

"Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn't get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students there a little entrepreneurial advice. "Start a business," he said. But how? "Borrow money if you have to from your parents," he told them. Gee, why didn't I think of that? Some people are lucky enough to borrow money from their parents, but that shouldn't determine whether you can pursue your dreams. I don't think Gov. Romney meant any harm. I think he's a good guy. He just has no idea how good he's had it."

Comment: If Castro is implying that you can't come up with policies that are good for the poor if you haven't been poor yourself, then this is a faulty appeal to authority. And, does suggesting to people that they try borrowing money from their parents somehow make Romney "out of touch"?

***

"We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don't accept is the idea that some folks won't even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that's exactly what they're promising us."

Comment: This is a derisive distortion. Republicans aren't perfectly comfortable with the idea that some folks don't get a chance to prosper. That a caricature just as much as saying that Democrats are perfectly comfortable with the idea of some people becoming an underclass dependent on the government. The real issue here is that Republicans and Democrats disagree about what constitutes getting an adequate chance to prosper, and how much of a role government ought to play in providing that opportunity.

***

"Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it."

Comment: This is another derisive distortion. Republicans aren't advocating that we sever all the threads that connect us, any more than Democrats are advocating that we eliminate all individual initiative and liberty.

***

"Either way, their theory has been tested. It failed. Our economy failed. The middle class paid the price. Your family paid the price."

Comment: This is "failed policies" rhetoric.

Civility Watchdog: RNC Chair Reince Priebus' Speech to GOP Convention

On August 28, 2012, Reince Priebus gave a speech opening the GOP National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"But Barack Obama thinks the government is at the center of the economic universe. He thinks that if you started a business, “You didn’t build that.” Well, how would he know? President Obama’s never run a company. He hasn’t even run a garage sale or seen the inside of a lemonade stand. So it’s time for a President with real experience in the real economy. Mitt Romney will be that President. Barack Obama and his party may be satisfied with attacking the American Dream. But Republicans won’t be satisfied until we’ve rebuilt the American Dream."

Comment: First, this is a distortion of Obama's "you didn't build that" remark. Obama was saying that business-owners didn't build "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive".

On the matter of Obama's business experience, it is a faulty appeal to authority to argue that, if you didn't run a business, you're not fit to offer up policies that will be good for business. Whether Obama's policies are good for business-owners is determined by the content of those policies, not by the background of the person espousing them.

Lastly, to say that Obama and Democrats are satisfied with attacking the American Dream is name-calling. It's a derisive caricature on par with saying that Romney and Republicans are satisfied with declaring war on the poor. I'm sure Priebus doesn't like being demonized by Democrats, he shouldn't do the same to them.

Civility Watchdog: Gov. Mitt Romney's Acceptance Speech to GOP Convention

On August 30, 2012, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) gave a speech accepting the presidential nomination at the GOP National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed. But his promises gave way to disappointment and division. … Today the time has come for us to put the disappointments of the last four years behind us. To put aside the divisiveness and the recriminations. … The America we all know has been a story of the many becoming one, uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness."

Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. How is it that we're supposed to unite and put aside divisiveness if we have different ideas about which policies are best for the country or for the economy?

***

"The president hasn't disappointed you because he wanted to. The president has disappointed America because he hasn't led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government. I learned the real lessons about how America works from experience."

Comment: This is poor reasoning, of the "appeal to authority" sort. It's not like someone who has worked in the private sector necessarily has a better idea of how to create jobs than someone who hasn't. It's not like a carpenter who builds houses is an expert on the economics of housing, nor is an expert on the economics of housing necessarily also someone who knows carpentry. Likewise, there's no necessary link between working in the private sector and having the right policies for the private sector. Romney should focus on the content of Obama's policies and the evidence for or against those policies, not on the background of the person advocating those policies.

***

"These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it. We weren't always successful at Bain. But no one ever is in the real world of business. That's what this President doesn't seem to understand."

Comment: This is a derisive distortion (AKA demonizing). Obama doesn't oppose success, he just has different beliefs about what policies will best promote success in the economy. Saying that Obama is attacking success is a caricature akin to saying that Republicans don't care about the poor.

***

"In the richest country in the history of the world, this Obama economy has crushed the middle class. Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled. Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before. Nearly one out of six Americans is living in poverty. … His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them."

Comment: This is "failed policies" rhetoric, and perhaps faulty reasoning of the "false causation" sort, as well. It's not enough to state that there are bad circumstances after Obama took office. You have to show that there's a causal link, that the bad economic data is because of Obama being president.

***

"You might have asked yourself if these last years are really the America we want, the America won for us by the greatest generation. Does the America we want borrow a trillion dollars from China? No. Does it fail to find the jobs that are needed for 23 million people and for half the kids graduating from college? No. Are its schools lagging behind the rest of the developed world? No. And does the America we want succumb to resentment and division? We know the answer."

Comment: Of course the answer to these questions is obvious, because we all agree that we don't want to borrow more money or have high unemployment or bad schools or resentment and division. It's nothing more than a platitude to state that we don't want these things. The question is how to avoid them, what policies will do the best job?

Civility Watchdog: Rep. Paul Ryan's Acceptance Speech to GOP Convention

On August 29, 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) gave a speech accepting the vice presidential nomination at the GOP National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"I'm the newcomer to the campaign, so let me share a first impression. I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. They've run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division are all they've got left. With all their attack ads, the president is just throwing away money— and he's pretty experienced at that. You see, some people can't be dragged down by the usual cheap tactics, because their ability, character, and plain decency are so obvious— and ladies and gentlemen, that is Mitt Romney."

Comment: Democrats are desperate to keep power? This is similar to the way that Howard Dean demonized Republicans on February 26, 2008. Ryan is also making the "fear-mongering" accusation as well as the "divisive" accusation. I think there's an implicit "only my opponent does it" caricature here, as well.

***

"What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn't just spent and wasted -- it was borrowed, spent, and wasted."

Comment: This is the "failed policies" assertion.

***

"Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing -- nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue."

Comment: Ryan uses "demagogue" rhetoric here.

***

"Whatever your political party, let's come together for the sake of our country. Join Mitt Romney and me. Let's give this effort everything we have. Let's see this through all the way. Let's get this done."

Comment: This is an appeal to "unify the country".

Civility Watchdog: Gov. Chris Christie's Keynote Address to GOP Convention

On August 28, 2012, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) gave the keynote address at the GOP National Convention. Below are some of the highlights concerning civil, productive debate:

"But our leaders today have decided it's more important to be popular, be popular, to say and do what's easy and say yes rather than to say no when no is what is required. … It's been easy for our leaders to say, not us, not now, in taking on the really tough issues. And unfortunately, we have stood silently by and let them get away with it."

Comment: Who is Christie referring to? Democratic leaders? If so, which ones? Is he referring to any Republican leaders? This is "unnamed antagonist" rhetoric.

***

"But tonight, I say enough. Tonight -- tonight, I say together let's make a much different choice. Tonight, we are speaking up for ourselves and stepping up. Tonight, we are going to be beginning to do what is right and what is necessary to make America great again. We are demanding that our leaders stop tearing each other down and work together to take action on the big things facing America."

Comment: Christie is calling for a higher standard of debate, here, which is fine in and of itself, but politicians have an unfortunate record of calling for civility and then not living up to it themselves. (They tend to only expect their opponents to be civil.) Along these lines, who is it that's "tearing each other down"? This is more "unnamed antagonist" rhetoric, which suggests that Christie might be indulging in the distortion that it's only or mostly his opponents -- and not his own side -- that resorts to unfair, uncivil debate practices.

***

"You see, we're not afraid. We are not afraid. We're taking our country back".

Comment: Take the country back from whom? "Take back our country" rhetoric is pretty standard fare in politics, but it suggests that the country needs to be taken back from people who aren't patriotic or aren't American.

***

"Now I know this simple truth, and I am not afraid to say it. Our ideas are right for America, and their ideas have failed America."

Comment:  This is "failed policies" rhetoric.

***

"Let me be clear with the American people tonight. Here's what we believe as Republicans and what they believe as Democrats. … They believe that the American people don't want to hear the truth about the extent of our fiscal difficulties. They believe the American people need to be coddled by big government. They believe the American people are content to live the lie with them."

Comment: This is a derisive caricature. Democrats and Republicans have legitimate differences of opinion regarding how bad the fiscal problems of the federal government are and regarding the best way to solve them. This isn't an argument between people who don't care about truth and people who do, to say that it is just name-calling of the sort that describes your opponents as intentionally doing what's wrong.

***

"They believe seniors will always put themselves ahead of their grandchildren, and here's what they do. They prey on their vulnerabilities and scare them with misinformation for the single cynical purpose of winning the next election. Here's their plan: whistle a happy tune while driving us off the fiscal cliff, as long as they are behind the wheel of power when we fall."

Comment: This is more name-calling and derisive caricature. It's also an accusation of fear-mongering.

***

"They believe the educational establishment will always put themselves ahead of children, that self-interests will always trump common sense. They believe in pitting unions against teachers; educators against parents, lobbyists against children. They believe in teachers' unions. We believe in teachers."

Comment: Again, more name-calling and derisive caricature. Christie wouldn't like it if Democrats caricatured him and Republicans as people who don't care about the poor, the elderly, or about investing in our children (as they will likely do in next week's Democratic Party National Convention), he shouldn't engage in the same misbehavior.

***

"We win when we make it about what needs to be done. We lose when we play along with their game of scaring and dividing."

Comment: To say that it's the Democrats who engage in "scaring and dividing" and not Republicans is the "only my opponent does it" caricature. There's ample evidence that this is a game that both sides play. It's also another fear-mongering accusation, along with an accusation of "dividing".

***

"You see, Mr. President, real leaders don't follow polls; real leaders change polls."

Comment: This is another derisive caricature, accusing President Barack Obama of simply adopting positions according to polls.

Analysis: Governor Bobby Jindal's response to President Barack Obama

Following are excerpts of Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, February 24, 2009]:

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go -- when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people. There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.

Comment: Is this really the lesson that we're forced to accept by this anecdote about Hurricane Katrina?

Suppose someone offered this anecdote, and the accompanying lesson: "Government mandated that airbags be put in cars. Just such an airbag saved my grandmother's life in a car accident that otherwise would have killed her. There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is found in our government." It doesn't seem like we're really compelled to draw this lesson from this anecdote. Likewise, the lesson Jindal tries to draw from the Hurricane Katrina anecdote is also a bit of a stretch.

Granted, there are times when government policies and regulations create needless obstacles and do more harm than good. But there are also times when government regulations and policies are helpful, and do more good than harm. To cite examples of either case and then come up with a general lesson about where "the strength" of the country lies is unfounded.

***

That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs. But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history -- with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending.

Comment: Jindal is describing Democratic policies on taxes and spending as being motivated by a distrust in people. Democrats, he says, don't trust us "to make wise decisions with our own money".

This is a caricature, however: all government spending involves taking money from people and spending it in a different way than the people would have spent it. The only way to avoid this is to not have ANY taxes or government spending at all, and neither Jindal nor Obama -- nor any other Republicans or Democrats -- are proposing that. Jindal himself says that some of the spending items proposed by Obama and the Democrats "make sense": does that mean he "distrusts" how the people would have spent that money? No, of course not.

Jindal doesn't agree with all of the Democrats' spending proposals. He thinks that lowering some taxes and cutting some spending would create more jobs and economic growth than the Democrats' proposals. But he needs to defend this assertion (just like Democrats need to defend THEIR claims that their proposals would create more jobs and growth than Republican proposals). But Jindal doesn't do this. Instead of giving us evidence for the claim that Republican economic proposals are better, he just dismisses Democratic proposals by saying that the latter are based on a "distrust" of the people (even though his own spending proposals are based on a similar "distrust").

***

Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did.

Comment: This seems like another caricature of Democratic proposals.

It's not as if Democrats are saying, "Hey, let's borrow money that our kids (and not us!) will have to pay back so we can buy a bunch of stuff we don't need." Rather, Democrats are increasing spending (granted, by borrowing more money) so that they can spend money on things they believe we -- both current and future generations -- DO need. Democrats believe that what they are spending money on are programs that are important to our prosperity in the near term and in the longer term, and that the benefits of that spending will outweigh the cost of having to repay the loans.

Now, just because they believe that doesn't mean that they're correct. It could be that they're wrong about what programs are vital to our prosperity. A detailed, substantive empirical debate is needed here -- from both Jindal (and Republicans) and Obama (and Democrats) -- regarding what policies will result in what costs and benefits. But Jindal doesn't give us a detailed argument supporting the claim that Republican policies are better, he just asserts it. And he offers up a caricature of Democrats as knowingly and intentionally spending borrowed money on superfluous programs that yield no benefit.

***

We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.

Comment: This is an appeal for bipartisanship, an appeal to unify the country, along with a condemnation of "partisan politics" (in other words, "negative politics").

Appeals for bipartisanship and condemnations of partisan politics are sort of the flip sides of one another. And they usually share the same flaw: a lack of specificity. What, in particular, is supposed to count as good, bipartisan behavior, and what counts as bad, partisan behavior?

Such is the case here, with Jindal's appeal. How, in particular, do we put aside partisanship on the issue of health care? Moreover, how do we do this in such a way that will make private health care "affordable and accessible" to everyone? What is it that Republicans need to "put aside" in order to get this result, and what is it that Democrats need to "put aside"? Jindal doesn't say.

As with most political issues, there are substantive disagreements on health care. People have beliefs -- different beliefs -- about what is the best course of action. Is Jindal instructing people to simply put aside their beliefs about what is the best course of action on health care? If he's not saying that, what is he saying?

Appeals for unity need to include details.

***

Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.

Comment: This is standard caricature. Just like Democrats, liberals, and "left-wingers" typically caricature Republicans, conservatives, and "right-wingers" as being greedy, uncompassionate people who don't care about the poor, the standard caricature in the other direction is that Democrats, etc. want government to run peoples' lives rather than have people be responsible for themselves.

Both caricatures are nonsense. There's a real debate about how much assistance -- how many services -- government should and shouldn't give. Should government provide roads, a police force, emergency services, unemployment benefits, education, dental care, etc.? These are legitimate questions.

Unfortunately, we like to simply caricature anyone who disagrees with us on these questions:

"If you don't agree with me that the government should be providing X, then I'm going to accuse you of being a social Darwinist who doesn't care about human suffering at all."

or:

"If you don't agree with me that the government shouldn't be providing X, then I'm going to accuse you of being a communist who doesn't believe people have any responsibility for their own well-being."

Such is the case here with Jindal. He should stick to arguing about what moral priorities we should have, and what policies he believes have the best empirical track record with respect to those priorities.

But saying that the people who disagree with him don't put their hope in the American people and want to make the American people dependents on government is simply caricature. If Jindal doesn't want his own views to be caricatured, then he shouldn't do it to the views of others.

-- Civ.

Analysis: President Barack Obama's Address to Congress

Following are excerpts of President Barack Obama's address to Congress [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, February 24, 2009]:

What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more. Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities -- as a government or as a people.

Comment: This claim -- that we as a government and as a people haven't been taking responsibility for our future or boldly confronting the challenges we face -- is questionable. Part of the problem with it is that it's not clear what he's asserting.

Is Obama making a claim about peoples' motivations? Is he saying that, up until this point, nobody was trying to take responsibility for our future or trying to boldly confront the challenges the U.S. faces? If so, then what he's saying is false. Of course there were people trying to do just that. They may not have been advocating the same policies as Obama, but they clearly had the same goal.

Obama might instead be making a claim about what policies will effectively address our problems. In other words, Obama could be saying that, up until this point, we weren't adopting the policies that will successfully confront the challenges the U.S. faces and thus secure our future. Though people were previously trying to take responsibility for our future and confront certain challenges, they weren't implementing policies that -- in Obama's view -- will actually achieve those goals.

This second claim is not straightforwardly false. But its truth depends on whether or not Obama's policies really are effective, whether they really will fix the problems we currently face.

And making that case involves making an awful lot of empirical predictions, predictions about what effects various policies (regarding taxes, spending, trade agreements, regulations, etc.) will have on various economic elements (on unemployment, on economic growth, on inflation, etc.).

Contrary to the confidence displayed by our politicians and pundits, such predictions are not easy to make [CDP: How Easy is it to Understand the Economy? February 12, 2009].

If Obama wants to claim that only a certain set of policies will adequately solve our currently problems -- and this seems to be a central assertion of his address to Congress -- then he needs to defend that claim.

However, as is typical of politicians making economic claims -- or empirical claims in general -- he provides very little in the way of evidence to defend this claim.

***

I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

Comment: Obama is saying that, in order to fix our currently problems, we must understand how they came to be. But he doesn't make much of a case for this claim.

It's not always the case that you need to know how a problem started in order to fix it. For instance, you don't need to know how a tire became flat: you can just replace it and the problem is fixed, without requiring any knowledge about the problem's origin. Likewise, clogged drains can often be cleared without know how they became clogged, and broken bones can often be mended without knowing how they were broken.

Sometimes you do need to know the origin of a problem in order to find the solution to that problem: this is often the case in medicine. Doctors often need to diagnose an ailment before they can effectively treat it (though not always, as in the aforementioned broken bones).

So, Obama needs to explain why our current situation is different from the flat tire or clogged drain situation. That is, he needs to explain why it is that we have to understand the origin of our problem before we can fix it.

***

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.

Comment: As with his earlier claim that we should once more "confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future," is Obama making a claim about motivations or about what policies have (or have had) what results?

Is he saying that people in the past era sought short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity? Is he saying that people gutted regulations in order to make a quick profit? Maybe some people had these motivations, but certainly many did not, in which case Obama is making a false assertion.

If, on the other hand, he's saying that -- whatever peoples' motivations were -- the policies of the past had good short-term results but bad long-term ones, then that is a statement relying on a host of empirical assertions which he has yet to back up.

Obama Demonizes Republicans

Obama clearly makes a disparaging caricature in the above quote. He says that people -- by which he means the administration of President George W. Bush in 2001 -- chose to take the government surplus as an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy. In other words, he is saying that the Bush administration was seeking to enrich the wealthy.

This is accusation is frequently made by Democrats (of which Obama is one) against Republicans (of which Bush is one), and is a standard example of how Democrats demonize Republicans.

Republicans often call for tax cuts, particularly for those who have higher incomes. There's a legitimate debate about whether this is a good idea. On the one hand, lowering taxes might result in the government not getting enough revenue in order to pay for worthwhile programs (although there's also a big debate between Republicans and Democrats about what constitutes a worthwhile program). On the other hand, lowering taxes will give higher income earners more money to spend, which could have lots of benefits for the economy in general, including people with lower incomes.

There's a lot of elements to this debate, largely involving empirical predictions about the effects of different tax and spending policies, as well as debates about which moral priorities should take precedence.

For Obama to sum up this complex debate as simply being a matter of Republicans wanting to give more wealth to the wealthy is nothing less than a caricature, a caricature that serves to demonize Republicans.

It is further misleading in that the phrase "transfer wealth to the wealthy" makes it sound as if Bush was taking money from people who aren't wealthy and giving it to rich people. But this is not the case: lowering taxes on higher income earners means that less money is taken from them. It's not the case that lower income earners were having to hand over more of their money to higher income earners.

Obama often talks about the need for bipartisanship and setting a higher standard of civil discourse: accusing Republicans of taking money from poor people in order to give it to rich people doesn't fit in with either of those goals.

***

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That's why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Comment: Again, Obama is making key empirical claims without backing them up.

What is the proof that not acting "would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years"? And what is the proof that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the action that will avoid that economic outcome?

Is Obama Appealing to Fear?

Obama is clearly urging us in a certain direction in the name of avoiding a perilous outcome. In other words, he is appealing to fear.

But there's nothing wrong with appealing to fear, in principle. There are things that it's quite reasonable for us to be afraid of, and there are actions that it's quite reasonable for us to take in the name of avoiding what we fear.

Politicians routinely appeal to fear, and they often accuse one another of appealing to fear. Democrats and Republicans frequently accuse one another of fear-mongering and using scare tactics on matters such as the economy, national security, public health, etc.

When they do this, the question we have to ask is whether the fear being appealed to is legitimate, and whether a legitimate response to that fear is being proposed. Appealing to fear only becomes "fear-mongering" and "scare tactics" in the negative sense when the fear is not legitimate or the course of action is not appropriate.

Judging whether someone is appealing to fear in the negative sense involves making predictions -- again, empirical judgments -- about whether something bad is going to happen, and whether adopting a certain course of action will prevent that bad thing from happening.

Because Obama doesn't go much into the empirical substance -- because he doesn't lay out clearly and conclusively the bad outcome we will run into unless we adopt his policies -- he doesn't give us a reason to believe that he's making a legitimate appeal to fear rather than engaging in inappropriate fear-mongering.

***

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government -- and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.

Comment: Again, this is an appeal to fear, based on a host of empirical claims that Obama does not do much to substantiate in this speech.

***

I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I. So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you -- I get it. But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job -- our job -- is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility. I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage.

Comment: Obama seems to be saying that at least some -- if not all -- of the objections raised to mismanagement of bailout funds should be dismissed and ignored because they amount to governing "out of anger" and giving in to "the politics of the moment". In other words, he's rejecting that class of objections as being frivolous, and not based on moral considerations.

Now, we certainly SHOULD reject frivolous objections, but Obama doesn't spell out which objections are frivolous. It's not the case than anyone who objects to his policies is raising a frivolous objection, giving in to anger and momentary political considerations, rather than appealing to legitimate moral considerations.

So, which objections in particular does Obama believe are frivolous?

***

I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

Comment: This is probably correct. It's very unlikely that government has no legitimate or productive role to play whatsoever in supporting our prosperity.

However, who has actually said otherwise? Granted, there are people -- Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, etc. -- who believe government should play LESS of a role in our lives and prosperity than Obama envisions. But that doesn't mean they advocate government having ZERO role whatsoever. So who is Obama rebutting with this claim?

It sounds like Obama might be caricaturing those opponents who call for less government intervention than he does. By falsely describing those opponents as being opposed to all government, he can brush them aside easily, like straw men.

But this is a false victory, since it is only achieved by misrepresenting his opponents.

Obama needs to specify who this comment is aimed at in order for us to judge whether it is fair criticism or dishonest caricature.

***

History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world. In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

Comment: Once more, Obama is making some broad empirical claims without much detail or defense.

In particular, he doesn't answer these questions: would any of these things have happened without government intervention? Would they have been accomplished with less efficiency? Is it always the case that government catalyzes private enterprise in a positive way? Does it ever influence private enterprise negatively?

The examples Obama gives are not analyzed, and cannot be taken as exhaustively representing the effects of government intervention on private enterprise.

***

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

Comment: There are several claims here concerning climate change (i.e., global warming), national security, and the cleanliness and profitability of renewable energy that are given little if any substantiation.

***

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade.

Comment: Another broad claim, comparing health care reform of the last thirty days to that of the last ten years, that is given little substantiation.

***

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American.

Comment: Is dropping out of school really quitting on your country? Is that the same as saying it's unpatriotic? Can we characterize other personal or economic decisions as "quitting on your country"?

If he wants to say that dropping out of school is unacceptable as a matter of morality or personal self-interest, etc., that's one thing. But saying that it's unacceptable with respect to supporting your country is another. It opens up a host of questions about what OTHER actions are unacceptable with respect to supporting your country.

Which, in turn, takes us back to all the discussions in recent years about patriotism, wearing flag pins, supporting the Iraq War, supporting the troops, paying more in taxes, etc. [For instance, see: CDP: Joe Biden Calls it "Patriotic" to Pay More in Taxes, October 7, 2008].

***

... we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

Comment: Obama doesn't clearly state how this furthers the cause of fairness (or "balance," for that matter, though I take it he's using the term as a synonym for fairness).

Part of this is because fairness (or justice, to use another synonym) is an ambiguous term, and can refer to several different moral considerations. And, even when it's clear which moral consideration is being alluded to, it's often vague how that consideration applies to concrete examples.

Like most politicians who raise the issue of fairness, Obama does not give any details that would alleviate either the vagueness or the ambiguity.

More, does this same standard of fairness apply to other countries? Should other countries do the same to companies that hire workers and invest in the U.S.? Would that be fair?

***

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend -- because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists -- because living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.

Comment: This claim -- "living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger" -- is almost certainly false if it means that there is never a conflict between our values (for instance, respecting human rights) and our safety.

It is certainly the case that we face moral dilemmas, situations where two moral considerations come into conflict and push us in different directions. And it is not difficult to imagine (or even to cull from recent history) situations in which our moral desire to respect privacy, due process, the rule of law, etc. comes into conflict with our desire to protect innocent people from harm and terrorism.

For Obama to simply assert that no such dilemmas exist -- that abiding by one of these moral considerations NEVER involves compromising or giving up on another -- is false.

For instance, since Obama became president, the U.S. has continued to bomb targets in Pakistan [AP: Airstrike Kills 7 in Pakistan, March 2, 2009]. These strikes are done in order to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and to kill members or allies of the terrorist groups Al Qaeda, but they occasionally harm or kill innocent Pakistanis.

Isn't the killing of those innocents a bad thing (even if it is believed to be justified in the name of achieving another moral goal)? Isn't this exactly a case of us choosing one moral consideration over another, because the two are in conflict? Don't these strikes represent actions that we take in order to make the U.S. safer, even though they violate the U.S. value of protecting innocent life?

Again, for Obama to say no such conflict exists is demonstrably false.

***

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

Comment: In describing the "new era," Obama is caricaturing the previous administration under Bush.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not attempt to meet "the threats of this century" alone, it regularly met and collaborated with allies such as Great Britain, Japan, Pakistan, etc.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not "shun the negotiating table," it regularly spoke with opponents and competitors in matters including trade and military conflict, such as its negotiations with North Korea regarding that country's nuclear program.

Under Bush, the U.S. did not "ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm," it regularly acknowledged its enemies -- again, it sometimes even negotiated with them, which is incompatible with ignoring them.

Now, this doesn't mean we have to agree with the way the Bush administration carried out any or all of these functions. Certainly, Obama believes there is a lot to be desired in the way the Bush administration performed on these fronts, and it is entirely fair for him to offer criticism.

But it is not acceptable for him to mischaracterize the Bush administration by saying that they did not work with others, they did not negotiate, and they ignored their foes. Such claims are false.

***

Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege -- one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth -- to become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial. But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary.

Comment: Here, Obama says it is easy to lose sight of the responsibility of governing, and to "become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial."

He doesn't clearly spell out what he means by "petty" and "trivial" behavior, though. As with most politicians who denounce "negative politics" and ask us to improve our political environment, Obama doesn't specify what we're to avoid and what we're to emulate. He sticks to the abstract, without giving any clear examples of good or bad behavior.

To make matters worse, Obama has made several violations of civil debate in this very speech, particularly with respect to distorting and caricaturing the views of his opponents. When people hear these caricatures, and then hear Obama calling for a higher standard of debate, they are likely to conclude that the two are compatible with one another, even though they aren't.

***

I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground. And if we do -- if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."

Comment: Obama is asking Americans not to question the patriotism of their opponents, not to insinuate that they don't love their country. There is some value in this sentiment, since one of the problems with out discussions of political and moral matters is that we tend to think the worst about anyone who disagrees with us (for instance, to think that they are unpatriotic or have sinister motivations).

But there are also some problems with this sentiment. There are the more abstract considerations, such as that people sometimes DO have unpatriotic or sinister motivations (though probably not nearly as often as we'd like to think), and that motivations and intentions -- good or bad, patriotic or unpatriotic, noble or sinister -- don't play a terribly conclusive role when it comes to evaluating actions or policies as being morally or politically acceptable.

But, more concretely, Obama doesn't do a very good job of living up to this sentiment in this very speech. He has repeatedly caricatured his opponents, and he has demonized them in at least one instance.

If he really knows that "every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed," then why does he keep disparaging so many of them?

***

Conclusion

Obama's address to Congress was a disappointment on several fronts when it comes to civil, productive debate.

He made many empirical claims without defending them. And he caricatured and disparaged his opponents even while he was calling for us to live up to a higher standard of debate.

Of course it's difficult to defend in depth EVERY empirical claim that your policies depend upon. And of course it can be challenging to ALWAYS be respectful of your opponents views, and to never be dismissive of them.

But the short shrift Obama gave to the empirical assertions he made was not even close to adequate. And the consistently unfair descriptions he gave of his opponents were made even more outrageous by being followed with a call for civil discourse.

-- Civ.