Skip to main content

The Political Fallacies

Political beliefs depend on the many assumptions that we accrue during our lives.  The young voter is particularly prone to fallacious assumptions because of lack of experience.

The worst fallacies are the caring fallacy, the fallacy of reasonableness, the globalization fallacy, the fallacy of historical responsibility and the fallacy of the planned economy.

The caring fallacy is an example of a fallacy that is common among younger voters.  It is the belief that governments and political change can produce a society that really cares, a society that cares for people beyond providing material and money.   This fallacy is believed because 18 year olds have been nurtured by families and usually families do indeed really care.  As any parent can confirm "really" caring for two or three people is a full time job and an utter commitment.

The caring fallacy is most dangerous because it devalues the role of families. When people do not understand that most love and caring is due to their family and believe that "society" can replace the family they can be led into a succession of consequential fallacies such as the state being able to provide "care" for children or the state being able to replace the family or that it is unproblematic to ignore the need to support families.

The fallacy of reasonableness is the belief that all cultures are "reasonable".  The most famous example of this belief is Chamberlain's Munich Peace Agreement with the Germans.  Some cultures even have words for how it can be necessary and honourable to dissemble when negotiating with foreigners (cf: Taqiya).  The view of the world from a British university or from Islington can easily involve the fallacy that, given the chance, every "reasonable" person would love to be the same as them.  Certainly other cultures may have reacted to overwhelming Western power in the twentieth century by signing up to lists of Human Rights etc. but many non-western cultures don't truly believe what they have signed.  The fallacy of universal reasonableness is most prevalent among young voters, the middle classes and academics who have not been cheated often enough to know that the world is not "reasonable".

The globalization fallacy originates in the fact of Western (Allied) hegemony after the Second World War when the great and powerful cultures of Japan and Germany were taken by the scruff of the neck and forced to be what we now call Western.  The ex-colonial states in Africa and around the world were carefully shepherded into the Western orbit.  A global trading bloc was created under GATT/WTO to cement Western values.  The current Globalisation was the result of the post WWII settlement and it ruled.  The globalisation fallacy is that the settlement was achieved through globalisation (not vice versa) and it was voluntary.  It is even often believed to be the dynamic achievement of Multinational Corporations.
Notice how the Western Allies used global symbolism
The current Globalisation was imposed and it is now experiencing four major disturbing forces - the Americans are running out of dollars to finance it, the Multinational Corporations currently see the global trading instruments as their fiefdom, the Chinese wish to take over these trading instruments and the Islamic World is uneasy about being a part of any of it.  The globalisation fallacy leads its believers to imagine that globalisation is a magic, consensus construction that just needs us all to believe in it to "save the world", yes, this sounds like they have been indoctrinated.  Sadly it is the Anglo-American indoctrination that was introduced to support the new system that has created the globalisation fallacy and the true believers are now working against Anglo-American interests.  The globalisation fallacy is always coupled with the fallacy of reasonableness which leads to the idea of global government and because everyone is reasonable there is no need to confront the problem of being governed by China.

The fallacy of historical responsibility holds that today's French or British are responsible for the excesses of the French and British Empires and are living on riches gained from these empires.  People living in Europe today are obviously not responsible for the excesses of empires that happened before they were born, furthermore they are not living on any pot of gold from these empires.  Most of Europe was severely damaged in World War II and it was the enterprise and hard work of Europeans that allowed the continent to rejoin the developed world.  In general it is the economic activity of the current generation that defines the prosperity of a Nation.  As we saw in the UK in the 1970s a country can slip towards poverty at an alarming rate if governance goes wrong.  The fallacy of historical responsibility is the strangest of the popular fallacies because it is so obviously wrong.

The fallacy of the planned economy holds that it is possible to have a prosperous and happy society if the economy is controlled centrally.   In the late twentieth century it was evident that all experiments at planned economies had failed.  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the change in China from Communism to National Socialism were the final and incontrovertible proof.  Now, only a generation later, many left of centre parties are selling the idea of state control again.  The key to the long lived fallacy of the planned economy is that those who support it cannot conceive how someone could get any personal reward from serving in a clothes shop and saying "how can I help you?", "that dress looks wonderful on you".  Clothing is a form of art and for some people it is a very worthwhile activity.  So it is for the engineer who sighs with satisfaction after he has produced a better gear box or even the antique shop owner who lovingly cradles a piece of porcelain.  Again it is academics, the boring government workers and the young who support the fallacy because they have no understanding that for many people commerce is the public validation of their creations.  The desire for a planned economy is no less than the old classist bias against "trade".

31/03/2020







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage