TRUMP and CLINTON (hey, it was in the title).
Throughout the presidential campaign of 2016 we have heard a recurring theme:
“Our country is sick. It needs to be made well. Vote for me and I will provide the remedy it needs. I will bring the healing that our country needs.”
There has been no shortage of rhetoric like this on either side of the political divide.
According to the inimitable G.K. Chesterton, however, this is a fallacy. He terms this the Medical Fallacy. How can politicians pontificate about what ‘well’ is in absolute terms, if the idea of well is of the most disputed issues in all of academia? One side of the ideological divide defines well in one way, while the other defines it differently.
What is seen as a remedy by one side of the political spectrum will be seen as an exasperation of the original problem to the other. This whole business of talking about “well” and “sick” is patently absurd. It is play on emotions. It is like invoking balls and strikes when talking about football. Only in medicine and science can this terminology be used.
Why you might ask? In medicine, we agree on what a well body looks like. We agree on what good is. The disagreement comes when it concerns malady. In politics and social science, we agree on what bad looks like—we disagree on what constitutes the good.
That is a profound problem.
To give you an analogy, Chesterton makes this grand point: It is a fact that a man may have pain in his leg and walk into a hospital, and due to medical necessity, come out with one leg less.
BUT HERE IS THE CLINCHER
Never will that man find himself under the scalpel of a doctor, and in a moment of creative rapture, walk out of the hospital, having being given one leg more.
Don’t fall for fallacies. Nonsense doesn’t cease to be nonsense just because it is uttered by an “intellect” or a “smart” politician.