In this vote, beware 'ad hominem' attacks.
Newburyport Daily News
Wednesday, April 27, 2005

To the Editor:
 
In politics, when someone can’t win an argument on the merits, they often resort to personal attacks.  The idea is to try to discredit the opponent personally, in the hopes that will also discredit the opponent’s argument.  Because how could anyone possibly believe anything that comes out of the mouth of that vile, self-serving twit?  This is known in the trade as an “ad hominem” attack.
 
Of course, there is a logical fallacy in this strategy: the truth of the message is not determined by who the messenger is.  Someone you have been told is a vile, self-serving twit may, in fact, be speaking the truth.  (And, that person might not be quite so vile, or self-serving, or so much of a twit, if only you knew them better.)
 
Usually, using “ad hominem” is a very effective strategy.  It has been a very effective strategy, since Aristotle described the process in On Sophistical Refutations; and probably even before that.  It appeals to the listener’s emotions, not their rationality.  It distracts from the main issue: which argument is right?  It clouds the issue by introducing extraneous considerations about personal character that are usually impossible to refute.  How can someone prove they are not “anti-children”?  How can someone prove they are not “anti-investment”?  How can someone prove they are not “anti-Townspeople”?  How can someone prove they are not “a vile, self-serving twit”?
 
And the strategy also causes most people to distance themselves from the argument, entirely.  Ooh, that is too nasty, I am not going to get involved.  It is almost always easier to walk away than it is to figure out the situation.  Should you believe the person doing the discrediting, or the person being discredited?
 
Has anybody else noticed the trend?  As politics get nastier, voter turnout drops?
 
The tone of politics in Amesbury sometimes gets really, really nasty.  As we head into the final days before the May 3rd special election, consider these tips for identifying “ad hominem” attacks: 
 
First, count the adjectives.  If there are a lot of adjectives, and they are not obviously supported by facts, take the adjectives with a grain of salt – it is probably an “ad hominem” attack.
 
Second: watch for hypocrisy.  If someone is condemning “divisive tactics” at the same time they are using divisive tactics, and they are blaming someone else for the divisiveness – it is probably an “ad hominem” attack.
 
Third: beware an emotional response.  If the words are intended to provoke an emotional response, rather than rational consideration – it is probably an “ad hominem” attack.
 
Fourth: keep your eye on the facts.  If the argument is intended to distract you from the basic facts of a situation – it is probably an “ad hominem” attack.
 
So on May 3rd let’s reverse the curse, let’s end the “ad hominem” attacks, let’s give people a reason to vote, it’s their right!
 
-Tom Iacobucci