Presidential Campaign Fallacy
This paper analyses the last election through the social cognitive concept. The paper apply researches from media bulletins based on Stowen’s analysis of major campaign errors committed by the United States president Barack Obama. Fallacies, attributions and correlation errors have been taken as the root source the analysis. The author’s analysis was based on different political material, such as TV interview, new bulletin and campaigns. Analysis of the presidential candidates cognitive has been shown in accordance to his political views or unknowingly contributions.
Obama committed a “consequence-intentionality” fallacy in his approach economic drivers. The fallacy can be interpreted as ‘the way I feel it, is the way it is’. The fallacy avoids consideration of other related factors but over rely on personal view. In his view, Obama identifies the growth of America as a pure government contribution rather than the hardworking of the Americans (Stowen, 2012). It is consequence-intentionality fallacy since he only believes in his own view, which can be challenged to some degree with statistical evidences. It is fallacious to believe that most Americans success and contribution to the economy plays insignificant role in American national growth.
According to Charles Krauthammer, “Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual” (Stowen, 2012, p.1). This only shows that Obama’s belief is only a personal perception but not a common view to every America, which is his own fallacious appeal to consequences.
From his statement Obama made voters believe that it is the government’s mandate to protect freedom of economics from adversarial forms of government. Critics believes that the statement was a “confuse correlation with causation” that it is the government’s duty to create market freedom the citizens to operate. This is a confused correlation with causation since the cause-effect of government intervention and development of American economy are not related. In fact, the growth of economy due to the private sector and contribution of the people is not considered. The president believes that hard work does not contribute to the success of a nation rather that the efforts of the public sector. Critics believe that Obama’s economic perspective is bias to some extent, the belief that American needs government help to succeeded in their business and without which, they will fail (Stowen, 2012, p.1).
Obama committed argumentum ad ignorantiam when he asserted that good government is solution to all American problems. In his statement “Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hard working people out there,” (Stowen, 2012, p.1). Obama implied that hard work without government support contributes to no success. The statement is contrary even to the American Dream, which calls for hard work at personal levels. It is clear that the president was using his power of influence to make the American believe that his opinion towards institutional empowerment is the sole recovery to American economic quagmire.
Obama strongly believed that Americans were in dire need of the government help (Stowen, 2012). While a percentage of Americans needs help with social services and some organizations too need constant boost with harsh economic trends, it is a hasty generalization that all Americans rely on government’s handovers. Many Americans value their independence, consequence, several organizations are against government intervention in their operations.
References
Stowen, R. (2012). Obama’s economic fallacies gave us “you didn’t build that.” Washington Times Communities. Retrieved on November 25, 2012, from; http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/general- factotum/2012/jul/29/obamas-you-didnt-build-comment-reveals-misundersta/
