Name calling, the laziest form of argument

Political engagement once entailed making sound arguments for or against propositions aimed at the common goal of improving our society. Sometime in the last few years however, this objective has been sacrificed in the name of contrarianism. Rational dissent based upon facts has gone the way of the albatross.

In its place has come the rise of the personal attack. Instead of providing a reasoned response to an argument, the ad hominem approach is to denigrate the individual. In some cases it can be abusive, “Quiet Piggy.” This is the lowest form of logical fallacy and generally reflects the inability to substantiate one’s argument or position.

U.S. President Donald Trump — who is often unable to counter any argument with facts — relies heavily upon this technique to the extent that he sinks to the level of childish name-calling. To Sen. Bernie Sanders’ argument for free higher education, Trump’s response was to attack Sanders, calling him a communist, with no reference as to why he disagreed with the idea.

In fact, anyone who disagrees with the president is a bad person, wacky or a left-wing lunatic. Unfortunately, these insults have gained substantial traction with his MAGA supporters who repeat the “Sleepy Joe” or “Stupid” slights ad nauseam. Political discourse has bottomed out, as have the understanding and application of basic logic.

One has to reflect upon how this affects our society as a whole, as leaders resort to the most illogical methods of establishing their political positions. At one time, there were norms that were generally accepted among the population without the need for written reminders and codes of conduct.

These days, code signage is ubiquitous — displayed prominently at doctor’s offices, in taxi cabs or buses. These codes generally all revolve around respect for one’s fellow citizen and carry the caveat that breaking elements of the code will result in a refusal to serve.

When did our society require such reminders to conduct itself in a decent manner?

Breaking codes have become commonplace in the Trump universe as his henchman, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, authorizes the murder of suspected individuals on the high seas. Not only is it illegal to fire on the shipwrecked, but this action is contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Codes of conduct are the rails with which our society stays on the road to peaceful coexistence.

Clearly the U.S administration regards these rules as impediments to its self-centred objectives. Breaking established codes, which in many cases have taken decades to arrive at through consensus, is a dangerous practise that the world and our children are watching.

Codes of conduct are established as an essential part of operating a safe and well run school. Children are encouraged to learn what acceptable behaviour is and to abide by the code.

As an adjunct professor of education, my course in classroom management for prospective teachers always began with the hierarchy of codes of conduct — from the division to the school, and finally, the classroom. It is of paramount importance that teachers understand that schools are required to have a code of conduct under the public schools act and to follow it. Each school’s expectations for behaviour are made abundantly clear and teachers must do their part in achieving them. There are consequences for bullying and abuse whether orally or in writing.

It must be very difficult to maintain acceptable behaviours in children when society’s role models and leadership representatives behave at a standard far below what is required in elementary schools. The bullying, abuse and lack of logic which persists even in our own Parliament and provincial legislature, is appalling.

Our premier and leader of the official Opposition have engaged in a long-winded altercation which has sunk to the depths of depravity, referring to each other as liars and bigots including reference to Trump’s favourite animal, the pig. MLA Rick Wowchuk, who was obviously unable to use common logic, resorted to calling a member “Pinocchio.” Speaker Tom Lindsey, flabbergasted by these outbursts, stated “I expect better from all of us.” Lindsey does have the authority to suspend members when they are unruly, and the time to order the withdrawal of members is long overdue.

There is no place for abusive ad hominem attacks in our governing chambers.

Perhaps it is time for the politicians in the legislature to review the provincial code of conduct laid out for political staffers. The code requires all government employees to “treat others with respect, courtesy and dignity.”

The world is facing challenges to established codes of conduct from kindergarten to the White House. We need to reach a higher standard which can only come from understanding why these codes are essential for the future of society.

Dave Taylor is a regular contributor to the Free Press. Please see his blog at https://variousfp.wordpress.com/