One of the most common logical fallacies employed in American political life today is the argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Literally, that means, “argument against the man, you, too.” Which is a wonderful demonstration of why literal translations aren’t always particularly helpful. Most logicians tend to label this along the lines of the “hypocrisy fallacy”, a variant of the classic ad hominem fallacy.

Al Gore, a frequent target of the “hypocrisy” charge. Image credit: Steve Jurvetson.

The essence of this fallacy, as it is commonly employed in American politics, goes something along these lines:

(1) Politician X claims that act A should be against the law.
(2) Politician X has, in fact, committed A.
(3) Therefore, outlawing A is a bad idea. OR, alternatively:
(4) Therefore, Politician X does not believe that A should be outlawed.

One frequent target of this type of fallacy is Vice-President Al Gore, who has spent his years out of office campaigning for policies to combat climate change. Just go to your nearest search engine and type “Al Gore” hypocrite, and you will be greeted with a slew of articles focusing on Gore’s use of private jets, his energy guzzling mansion, and other aspects of his lifestyle that might be considered at odds with his climate changing image (although I, personally, am not convinced about this point on his lifestyle). But the most bizarre aspect of these lines of attack is that Gore’s lifestyle is used, not as criticism, but as proof that man-made climate change isn’t real. Which is just absurd.

Let’s parse this argument out. The argument made here is that:

(1) Al Gore argues that man-made climate change.
(2) Al Gore says that people have to live a certain way in order to achieve it.
(3) Al Gore doesn’t live that way.
(4) THEREFORE, man-made climate change doesn’t exist.

The problem with this argument is that there’s simply no connection between Gore’s lifestyle and the truth or falsity of man-made climate change. At best, you could argue that Gore’s lifestyle is evidence that Al Gore doesn’t believe that man-made climate change is real. Even then such an argument is open to a lot of lines of attack.

But conservatives aren’t alone is accusing their opponents of hypocrisy in lieu of grappling with policy differences. Social conservatives are frequently a target of attacks by their political enemies on the grounds of hypocrisy. Senator Larry Craig, for example, has been assaulted with the hypocrisy charge after being accused of cruising for gay sex in a public restroom. The main thrust of this hypocrisy charge is the fact the he has consistently voted against gay-friendly legislation. But, as much as it pains this gay-friendly partisan to admit, the simple fact of the matter is that Craig’s homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of pro-gay legislation. Arguments in favor of those policies need to stand on their own merits.

The constant charge of hypocrisy against political opponents is particularly venomous because such attacks frequently tip over into attacks on a politician’s personal life. Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, for example, resigned in disgrace after being found to have solicited prostitutes after a career of prosecuting them. But you don’t hear people saying, as a consequence, that prostitution should be legalized. (Well, I would argue that it should be, but that’s not what came out of it.) Additionally, very few people make the argument that because the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who fathered a child out of wedlock after a lifetime of preaching against adultery, adultery must be okay.

These more extreme examples demonstrate the real purpose of the hypocrisy charge: not to denigrate policy, but rather to denigrate partisans. The result of this is the political climate you see today: one where lots of qualified people don’t bother running for office because they don’t want their personal life dragged into the public square.

What’s more, because charges of hypocrisy so easily devolve into personal attacks, the net result is that even legitimate criticism of a politician can now safely be derided in the media as “going negative.” For example, pointing out that a candidate’s voting record doesn’t match the candidate’s campaign rhetoric is seen as “going negative”–when it’s nothing of the sort. The net result of this is that we end up with a political culture where legitimate criticism is basically considered equivalent to nasty personal attack.

The prevalence of the hypocrisy fallacy in today’s political climate is a clear detriment to rational political argument in this country. By constantly focusing on who’s a hypocrite and who isn’t, we’re providing a disincentive for decent human beings to get involved in politics. After all, the people who can thrive best in a climate of personal attacks are people absolutely devoid of shame. Surely we don’t need to encourage them.