OReilly, Holland 1 Sarah OReilly & Brett Holland Professor Blair English 1103-25 22 October 2013 The President

and Fallacies; A Goal to be Misunderstood Those who do not constantly have their guard up are blissfully in the dark when it comes to how often our brain distorts thoughts due to the use of fallacies in even the most basic of arguments. Fallacies are used by many for the purpose of being convincing or reassuring the audience what they want to hear. For the most part, everyone has been guilty of inadvertently using these problematic fallacies. Politicians tend to use them more frequently than others. Obama has the ability to convince and persuade his listeners of his plans for the future. In his speech on the Iraq War in 2002 he speaks for and against the war using verbal swindles such as red herring, glittering generalities, and ad homniem, explained by Nancy Wood, Ann McClintock, and Lutz. Although weakening his argument, the use of these linguistic tricks allow his stylistic speaking ability to inform the audience that war at that time is not the solution. Nancy Wood defines a red herring as a statement that provides irrelevant and misleading support that pulls the audience away from the real argument (Wood par.8). Obama was making a speech at an anti-war rally when at the time, a solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to end Saddam Husseins rule" (Feinstein par.4). At the time, Obamas anti-war opinions could have jeopardized his political career. This speech may not have been the easiest piece to broadcast, which may be the explanation for why Obama continued to sway off track from his argument. Instead of stating his reasoning for being against the war, he told a story. In paragraph two he reminisces on the time when his own Grandfather joined the

OReilly, Holland 2 army and fought bravely for United States. He fought in the name of larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil (Obama par.2). This story of his Grandfather could have been told for many explanations- to amuse, to encourage, to pass the time, or even to charm his toughest critics. Although the story is about war, it is irrelevant to the argument and distracts the audience from true reasoning. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove were strategist and advisors in the Bush administration. These people are all distinguished professionals. References and direct comments such as Political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income (Obama par.5) or cynical attempt by Richard Perele and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their ideological agendas down our throats (Obama par.4) may develop the image of Obama as a more proficient politician. However; if the audience is able to recognize that the offensive statements made about these individuals are fallacious, they will be able to identify the fallacies used by Obama. In truth, Karl Rove is not distracting the public from the uninsured, the poverty level, or the median income. He instead wrote in his book about the matters and how President Bush dealt with them. He wrote, He set up a White House office to promote these efforts and issued an executive order providing religious charities equal access to government grant monies. No longer could only secular nonprofits apply for the roughly $20 billion each year to confront addiction, homelessness, and domestic violence. By 2007, roughly 10.8% of these funds were going to faith-based charities. Bush's focus was not whether you were a sacred or secular organization, but whether your program changed lives. (Rove pg.239) Obamas irrelevant and incorrect information pulls away from his argument and throws the audience off track, representing a true red herring.

OReilly, Holland 3 Glittering generalities use vague terms that are difficult to define and that may have different meaning to different peopleThis kind of language stirs positive feelings in people, feelings that may spill over to the product or idea being pitched. (McClintock par.5) By Obama using the phrases, crucible of the sword and sacrifice of multitudes (Obama par.1), he turns the
audience emotional and develops his sensitive appeal. The story of Obamas Grandfather who saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe and who fought in the name of a larger freedom not only increases the honor and genuineness of Obamas family but also wins the hearts of the public. They become convinced that Iraq war is simply a dumb war (Obama par.5). Obama mentions the Civil War and its influence to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil (Obama par.1). When considered, all of these words simply verify that war is inevitable and beneficial in certain situations but not the one being discussed. Like many politicians, Obama uses glittering generalities in his speech so that the emotional reaction from the public will overpower his sense of judgment.

Another fallacy Obama uses frequently is ad hominem. Ad hominem is a type of false language often used by political figureheads. They use this method to attack peoples character rather than their ideas. One example of Obamas use of ad hominem is found in the sentence, What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. (Obama par. 4). This is an example of ad hominem because Obama criticizes Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, calling them weekend warriors (Obama par. 4) with cynical attempts to try and solve the war. Obama is attacking the men directly and not attacking the problem, or their ideas to solve the problem. Along with red herring Obama demonstrates an ad homniem when he says political hacks like Karl Rove (Obama 5). This is an attack on Roves character rather than an attack on

OReilly, Holland 4 Karls idea. Ad hominem is a professional, yet still childish way of pointing fingers. Ad hominem is a very easy fallacy to use unintentionally because pointing fingers and calling names is usually easier than addressing the problem. Unfortunately Obama, along with many other politicians, rely on ad hominem to get their points across in an appealing way rather than an understood way. Like the average person, we all care to understand and to be understood. In a perfect world every piece of written and spoken literature would be easy to understand and would not include false language. Unfortunately the world we live in is flawed and fallacies and false language are a part of everyday life. Even the President of the United States uses fallacies in an attempt to come across as understanding and unbiased. Obamas use of red herring, glittering generalities, and ad hominem are disappointing but expected methods used in his speech meant to cause misunderstanding or confusion. Fallacies are unfortunately growing more accustom to everyday language. Though we might not be able to fully understand them, we can at least be aware of them.

OReilly, Holland 5 Works Cited Feinstein, Lee. "www.cfr.org." Most Americans Support War with Iraq, shows New Pew/CFR Poll. N.p., 10 10 2002. Web. 6 Oct 2013. Lutz, William. Doubts about Doublespeak. Models for Writers. Eds. Alfred Rosa and Paul Eschholz. New York: Bedford / St. Martins, 2004. 122-126. Print. McClintok, Ann. Propaganda Techniques in Todays Advertising. The Longman Reader. Ed. Judith Nadell. New York: Longman, 2003. 304-311. Print. Obama, Barack."Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War."www.npr.org. N.p., 20 01 2009. Web. 4 Oct 2013. Rove, Karl. Courage and Consequence. Threshold Publishing, 2010. 239. Print. Wood, Nancy. Essentials of Argument. Upper Saddle River: Pearson / Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.