The term, “founding fathers,” in and of itself implies a measure of internal conformity. Our political discourse would be better served by exposing these flawed premises of the “appeal to the founders.” Nonetheless, the biggest problem with this situation is that all too often, the dialogue accepts the historically inaccu-rate and logically flawed assumptions of the original question-that the founding fathers were monolithic in their politi-cal opinions and that those opinions are somehow binding, much less relevant at all, in a present-day discussion of public policy.
#RED HERRING LOGICAL FALLACY IN RUSSIAN HOW TO#
Otherwise, the appeal to the founding fathers falls somewhere between an “appeal to authority” and an “appeal to tradition.” Accordingly, “a small government” ideology is prefer-able to a “big government” not because of facts, reality, or the needs of society and how to best meet them, but because of what the founders intended. The founding fathers provide a convenient rhetorical distraction from debating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for example, on its own merits. In some instances, it functions as a red herring.
Using the legacy of the founding fathers as a political litmus test not only abandons substantive debate, but it comes dangerously close to a logical fallacy. As a result, what could otherwise have been a productive political discussion de-volves into exchanging highly subjective generalizations about what our nation’s founders believed. When the topic of the founding fathers is raised in a contemporary political debate, the response is often to argue that one’s posi-tion can indeed be reconciled with the founding fathers’ vision for America. In today’s political discussions, the question as to whether the founding fathers would have approved of a given idea or policy is a tactic to stifle and delegitimize the opposition.Īs asking the question “what would the founding fathers think?” becomes increasingly common, so does answer-ing it on its own terms. Along with the rise of the Tea Party, countless pundits, journalists, and analysts have injected the founding fathers into current debates on public policy. In its very name, the movement alludes to the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the fa-mous act of revolutionary protest. Tea Party rallies overflow with costumes, images, and signs that suggest an American Revolution theme. One need not spend too much time researching the Tea Party Movement to see how the founding fathers have resurfaced as powerful political images. Through a re-constructed history, they have become a symbol, in 2011, for irrationally clinging to the political realities of 1789. Out from the history books and national monuments, the founding fathers have emerged as a posthumous force in the exact forum in which they do not belong- contemporary political discourse. But they have recently experienced a rein-carnation of sorts. Of course, their status in our collective consciousness is deserved, as their past contributions to the development of the United States are beyond question. As our founding fathers, they are unquestionably among the most influential and culturally significant figures in American history. The countless tributes to their respective names include street signs, public squares, dollar bills, and universities. These are just a few of the prolific members of a generation of Americans that determined the destiny of our nation.
0 kommentar(er)
