The red herring fallacy is a common rhetorical device in politics, where irrelevant information is introduced to distract from the actual issue or argument at hand. This tactic aims to mislead the audience and shift the focus away from the main point. To better understand and recognize this tactic, let's explore some prominent red herring fallacy examples in politics.
Before delving into specific cases, it's crucial to understand the structure of the red herring fallacy. It generally follows this format: A person makes claim B, but instead of defending claim B, they introduce claim C, which is unrelated to B and often fired up with emotional rhetoric. By doing so, they attempt to sway the audience's attention and blur the original issue. Now, let's examine some political examples.
Classic Red Herrings in Presidential Debates
Presidential debates are hotbeds for red herrings, with candidates employing this tactic to deflect attention from weak points or to bait opponents into reacting emotionally. Let's consider two historical instances:
Reagan vs. Mondale - Medicare Catfish
During the 1984 debate between President Ronald Reagan and Democratic nominee Walter Mondale, Reagan used humor to avoid discussing his age and its implications for a potential second term. When asked about his age, Reagan replied, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." The crowd laughed, and the issue was temporarily defused.
Although Reagan's response wasn't entirely unrelated to the question, it effectively changed the narrative by playing to the audience's emotions, labelling Mondale as inexperienced. This is a textbook example of a red herring, as it didn't address the initial concern about Reagan's age and health.
Bush vs. Gore - The " господин" Incident
In the 2000 debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Bush played the red herring card by repeatedly mispronouncing the word "governor" as "gospodin." When Gore pointed out the mistake, Bush dismissed it as a mere slip-up, claiming, "Come on, Al, you've been doing the same thing for years. Give me a break." He then attacked Gore's record on the environment.
Bush's response shifted the focus from his pronunciation mishap to the environmental debate, steering the conversation away from his earlier gaffe.
Red Herrings in Legislative Hearings
Congressional hearings often attract political red herrings, as legislators attempt to control the narrative or shift the focus. Let's examine two such instances:
Clinton Impeachment - Lewinsky vs. Impeaching Bush
During Clinton's impeachment hearings, Republican Congressman Bob Barr attempted to connect Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct with the potential impeachment of then-President George H.W. Bush over the Iran Contra scandal. Barr argued that if one could be impeached for a sex scandal, then Bush should have been impeached for the Iran Contra affair, which he considered a more serious offense.
Barr's argument was a red herring, as the crimes, legal precedents, and political environments surrounding the two cases were vastly different. Yet, it succeeded in pushing the narrative towards a contentious topic that could polarize the public and draw attention away from the primary issue at hand—Clinton's impeachment.
Kavanaugh Confirmation - Ford's Allegations vs. windmills and black helicopters
During the heated debate surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, Senator Chuck Grassley tried to discredit Christine Blasey Ford's allegations of sexual misconduct. Rather than addressing Ford's testimony directly, Grassley introduced an unrelated topic, suggesting that her allegations were a part of a Democratic plot. He stated, "The Democratic strategy has been to drag this out as long as possible. ... Even when they thought they were down, even when Kavanaugh was ahead by a couple points, they kept running the same old playbook. They're using this hearing to rail against President Trump."
Grassley's comments were a clear red herring, attempting to shift blame onto the Democrats and cast doubt on Ford's credibility without directly engaging with the substance of her allegations.
As voters, constituents, and political observers, being aware of these tactics is the first step towards holding our leaders accountable. By recognizing and calling out red herrings, we can encourage more honest, substantive, and productive political discourse. However, it's important to remember that not every change in topic is necessarily a red herring; sometimes, politics involves complex trade-offs and shifting sands. The key lies in discerning when a discussion shift is a genuine pursuit of truth and when it's a smoke screen to avoid tough questions.