The fallacy of positive instances is the tendency for individuals to only recognize components of statements or arguments that coincides with their preconceptions on the matter at hand. This inclination in human behavior has been utilized in various pseudopsychologies as a primary mechanism for the justification of credibility they undeservedly claim. However, the exploitation of this psychological trend is not something that should only be dismissed as the work of these fake sciences; its applications transcend over various components of everyday life, politics being a prime example.
Politics is one area that is riddled with the influences of the fallacy of positive instances. Politicians and their party's make various claims in order to appeal to voters of interest. The platform upon which politicians stand are composed of “solutions” to the issues and complaints the current voting population has. These hypothetical alternatives to the current manner in which political matters are handled, irrespective of whether the politician follows through with them, are purely a means of “advertising”. This “advertisement” has become a fundamental component to the campaigning tactics politicians use.
Candidates who adequately cover enough political matter in this manner, find themselves winning the position. This, however, leads to a new issue; the highlighted perspectives that had been used as a means of promotion, now become actual agendas and plans they are expected to adhere to. This proves to be exceptional difficult and more often then not, the promises these individuals make during their campaigning go unfulfilled. The occurrence of election promise-breaking gives rise to the argument that politicians manipulate voters by invoking the fallacy of positive instances.
The list of broken promises made by U.S Presidents is rather substantial and includes very lofty claims. In hindsight, the promises seem unreasonable and it becomes a wonder how they were even accepted to begin with. The rationale behind these claims will not always undergo due scrutiny, sheerly because they touch upon an area of real dissatisfaction of voters. One such example is seen in George H. W. Bush's campaign for presidency in 1988. Bush made his share of promises if elected, but none were more widely blazoned then the promise of “No New Taxes”. Its important to understand that at the time, the nation was struggling economically. The concept of solving the financial situation without the use of new taxes was a welcome one, and agreeable by all. Bush handily won the election and two months later, assumed his position as Commander – in – Chief. However, with a increasingly staggering national deficit, Bush would have to go back on his major election promise, made just one year before, and raise taxes. George H. W. Bush had acquired his position as Head of State through his promising of no new taxes. It comes as no real surprise that he failed to retain office for a second term, after reneging his “firmly” established disposition
The polarization of political parties has also allowed the fallacy of positive instances of voters to be taken advantage of. The political landscape of today, which often dismisses the intrinsic value in moderation, forces voters to pigeonhole themselves into fitting one of the two major parties. Concurrent with this political ultimatum, is the dominating nature of both parties. This shared trait causes the parties to take stances of extremity on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The abundant and stark differentiation between the stances of the parties provides a voter with multitude of factors they can find pleasing. The tipping point for selection could even be limited to a single common aspect, like the embracement of certain religious values. This is why Republican and Democratic platforms are rather all-encompassing. By taking a defined stance on so many different topics, the political party creates more opportunities where they can potentially share the ideology of a voter. The fallacy of positive instances allows the voter to use as little as one issue they feel strong enough about to justify their choice of a politician, notwithstanding their being indifferent or even opposed to the position the same candidate takes on another matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment