Political Fallacies

Hannah More's "Village Politics" attempts to demonstrate through a conversation between two actors the dangers of questioning authority, and the importance of maintaining traditional ways of doing things. Jack is the voice of reason in the text, arguing that Tom should not read books and corrupt his mind with new ideas that would cause him to lose faith in his King or to question the King's legitimacy. After reading this text, I realized that while I don't agree with anything that Jack preached about, it is hard not to say that he lost the argument when Tom said nothing of worth. Jack says long-winded speeches defending his point of view, using what seems to be logic and reason to prove that he is right. On the other hand, Tom says things such as, "What are all the jails for? Down with all the jails, I say, all men should be free." Not only is this a misrepresentation of what Tom (or defenders of freedom and democracy) is saying, but it is painting him out to be a fool. Hannah More sets Tom up to fail and makes it seem like his argument has no merit because she makes him out to be an idiot. As soon as I realized this, it was hard for me to think highly of her work because she really has no opposition in her writing.

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/03/favourite-fallacies-straw-man.html

Interested in what this is called, I researched Political Fallacies online, and found a whole slew of them. In my opinion, Hannah More's text mostly represents the "straw man" fallacy, in which she misrepresents the other person's argument (Tom's) by pretty much creating a fake opponent that might as well be made of straw.

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o&feature=fvwrel

This is not the only popular political fallacy that exists. One that we see constantly during political elections is argumentum ad hominem, in which a party attacks another party based on their characteristics or beliefs, rather than addressing any of the party's claims. We see this constantly in politics as a candidate will often criticize another side without taking the time to debate topics that actually matter for the campaign. An example of this is seen at this link:

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebT1Oo6yDMI

This is definitely not the only example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, as it is used by almost every single politician out there. Individuals will use this technique whenever they don't have a response back to a claim or accusation in an attempt to not lose face, or to dismiss the issue. Another one that is presented constantly is ignoratio elenchi, which is any rebuttal that fails to address the central argument. While watching a presidential debate, this fallacy is seen constantly as candidates talk around the question they are asked when they either don't know what to say, or don't want to answer the question directly. An explanation of other fallacies can be found at this link:
http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2010/04/09/top_10_logical_fallacies_in_politics

The reason why I found this to be an interesting topic is because I think it is important to look out for these political fallacies when you are a participant in political processes. Hannah More's argument lost credit in my mind when I realized that it is mostly based off of a misrepresentation of the argument, and off of making the opposition look unintelligent. During election periods, we need to look for these fallacies in debates that we hear, as well as in commercials and other media that presents information to the public. Often times they will use these strategies to make their side look like the only logical and correct one, and people don't realize that this is happening. We live in a world now that has so many ways to pass along information, and because of this, we must always be wary of the source and the presentation of this information. Otherwise, we could make decisions and judgments without knowing all of the facts.