Among the Rovian techniques, the ubiquitous "Clinton did it too" defense must be effective, because it’s always there. Lately, the word "hipocracy" is almost always included. The usual response is to begin to point out that Clinton didn’t do the same thing, or what he did didn’t have so many consequences, or that he didn’t do whatever it was in the first place.
It’s a combo of several formal logical fallacies, guilt by association and ad hominem tu quoque. This latter mouthful is defined as follows:
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.
So, "You are a Democrat. A Democrat [Clinton] lied. Therefore, you can’t criticize me for lying."
I for one thought Bill Clinton behaved abysmally. While his sexual dalliances are his business, he made them our business. He was impeached for lying. I kind of agree with that, and even though it was a partisan attack, Bill Clinton was guilty. So the association part is true. A Democrat lied, big time. The obvious response to that criticism is, "Yes. Bill Clinton lied. I’m not Bill Clinton."
Sometimes, the Rovian version is more direct, as it was in the recent RNC response to Al Gore. "Your Administration involved itself in a warrantless search in the case of blah blah. Ergo…" While it’s tempting to refute the charge, which is what Gore did. What also needs doing is to point out the fallacy in the logic. Gore sort of did that when he commented, "…the Attorney General’s attempt to cite a previous administration’s activity as precedent for theirs – even though factually wrong – ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal." I would like to hear him add, "But even if we had done it, that would still not be a justification for Bush’s massive N.S.A. eavesdropping without judicial review, any more than the misuse of in intelligence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident justifies the distortion of intelligence in taking us to war with Iraq. Two wrongs don’t ever make a right!"
Defending oneself when the attack is a fallacy justifies the logic of the attack unless the fallacy is also directly revealed.
Can Bush play the saxophone?
The offense rests!
“Defending oneself when the attack is a fallacy justifies the logic of the attack unless the fallacy is also directly revealed. ” I didn’t quite follow this. Please illustrate.
Example: If I say, “Well you did the same thing back when you were in office” and I only say “I did not!” I have taken the bait, that your Ad Hominem Tu Que argument is a valid argument. It’s fine to say, “I did not!” but you need to add, “But pointing out what I did or did not do doesn’t justify your breaking the law. You are evading responsibility for your own behavior. If you think I broke the law too, I’d suggest you file charges. Now, back to what you did…”