Political Obfuscation
Thinking Critically about Public Discourse
BY TIMOTHY J. REDMOND
THE 2016 GENERAL ELECTION, like those before it, provides an example of how public officials can obscure discourse with five common techniques: utilizing dangling comparatives, using “average” in a misleading manner, fear mongering, offering anecdotes as evidence, and using euphemisms and dysphemisms. This article is designed to provide citizens with the tools to recognize and combat such obfuscation.
1. The Dangling Comparative
When one encounters a dangling comparative, he or she should always ask “Compared to what?”
According to Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, authors of UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, a dangling comparative “occurs when any term meant to compare two things—a word such as ‘higher,’ ‘better,’ ‘faster,’ ‘more’—is left dangling without stating what is being compared.”1
In 2004, a George W. Bush television advertisement claimed “[John] Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.”2 This claim seems to suggest that Kerry voted to increase existing tax rates on numerous occasions. In fact, he did not.
Note that the word higher is a dangling comparative. The utilization of this dangling comparative allowed President Bush to use instances in which Senator Kerry voted to retain and even reduce current tax rates as evidence that the latter supported “higher taxes.”
Imagine a situation in which John Kerry voted against a Republican proposal to cut the tax rate from 20 percent to 10 percent. Did he vote for “higher taxes”? It depends on whether one compares his vote to the Republican proposal or the current tax rate. If one compares Kerry’s vote to sustain a 20 percent tax rate to the plan to cut the tax rate to 10 percent then he could be accused of supporting “higher taxes.” But if one compares his vote to the current tax rate he did not vote for “higher taxes” at all. He simply voted to maintain the existing rate of 20 percent.
Likewise, suppose Democrats put forth a competing plan to reduce the current tax rate of 20 percent to 15 percent. If Kerry voted for the Democratic tax plan did he vote for “higher taxes”? Again, it depends on whether one compares his vote to the existing tax rate or the proposal put forth by the Republicans. If one compares Kerry’s vote to reduce the 20 percent tax rate to 15 percent he clearly voted for a tax cut. But the Bush campaign actually counted comparable votes as support for “higher taxes” because Kerry could have voted for the lower 10 percent tax rate suggested by the Republicans. Remarkably, the use of the dangling comparative can turn a vote for a tax cut into a vote for a tax increase.
Republicans, of course, do not have a monopoly on using the dangling comparative to obfuscate the facts. In 2001, the Democratic National Committee produced a television advertisement that featured a young girl holding up a glass and asking “May I please have some more arsenic in my water, Mommy?”3 The message was that President Bush wanted to put “more arsenic” in drinking water than was currently allowed. In fact, he did not.
Once again, the word “more” is a dangling comparative. “Compared to what?”
Arsenic gained great fame during the 19th century when it became the substance of choice for several high profile poisoners. Yet, natural traces of arsenic that are found in the Earth’s crust can seep into drinking water and result in several deleterious health effects.4 Since 1942, the Federal Government’s standard for the maximum level of arsenic in public water systems had been set at 50 parts per billion. In 2001, President Clinton proposed a new rule that would have reduced the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion. The new limit was to go into effect in 2006. Upon assuming the presidency, George W. Bush advised that the amount of arsenic in drinking water be limited to 20 parts per billion. Following a public backlash, however, the Bush Administration decided to uphold the arsenic level tendered by the Clinton Administration.5