My Facebook Discussion With Friend ZZ About The Alleged Impropriety Of The Word "Trumpista"

(This fully contextualized Facebook exchange is "below the fold.")

ZZ: It's a stretch for me to accept one line from a larger exchange and say, "That means it's OK/effective to make personal attacks."

Welch stood firm and showed principal, in public, at a time when people were waiting for someone to do that. It seems to me that his principled stand was the critical element, and even if his attack on McCarthy's decency played a role, that was in the context of a veteran and Army lawyer talking to Congress and addressing a specific person, known to the public. You pointing to it as a singular example underlines my point--are you really going to base a general practice on such a specific, one-time event?

On the basis of a single event with the given particulars, you are defending making blanket name-calling statements against 40ish % of the American voting public (calling them "Trumpistas").

It's possible to actually address Trump's flaws without name-calling, and certainly possible to do so without making sweeping accusations against his base.

You wrote: Concerning your assertion: "I know for a fact that not all of (Trump's followers) are stupid, nor ignorant, nor racist."
You asked: Where is your demonstration of proof?

My proof is that I personally know people (not many, granted--a total of 2) who fall into those categories. One of them is someone who voted for Trump because the most important thing to him was avoiding foreign wars at all costs, and Clinton is a hawk. They didn't like the sexism and racism, but decided it was less important than warmongering. I don't agree with him, but he's neither stupid nor ignorant, and I am unsure as to his racism. The other is a libertarian with an almost monomaniacal hatred for taxes. Again, I know him to be neither stupid nor ignorant, and I do not know him to be racist.

You make a long chain of theoretical arguments including civil/criminal law, Jung, Hitler/the 3rd Reich (which could lead you to lose this debate due to Godwin's Law), and . It all amounts to defending the idea that somehow insulting people can have positive results, or is some sort of civic duty when the target is sufficiently awful.

Yet we have both sides making constant personal attacks, character assassinations, and feeling oh-so-sure of themselves and here we are. I have yet to see the progress.

Where I DO see progress is in Democratic candidates focusing on issues, facts, and a positive way forward. In the 2018 elections, Trump was not often mentioned by the candidates who won in swing or even red districts.

As to Trump's character, I agree with you--he's despicable and terrible for this country.


Alan Archibald: 

To begin...

I just did a brief review of the literature and learned that ad hominem argument is as effective as intellectually-rigorous argument.

In politics, where -- as I see it -- the core aspiration is to "keep crazy people out of office," I will continue to write political commentary that is well-documented and intellectually rigorous.

But I will also use "ad hominem" argument as an effective adjunct. 

Consider.

"In a study, scientists had people evaluate scientific claims paired with attacks. They found that attacks on positions based on ad hominem fallacies were just as effective as attacks based on evidence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790247/ (published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)

"Ad hominem attacks have the potential to be both fallacious and effective." https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062 (Alan: Nor do ad hominem attacks need to be fallacious. There are ad hominem attacks that are entirely true.)

Then there is this "Scientific American" article,  "Character Attacks: How To Properly Apply The Ad Hominem": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

In passing, I will note that "ad hominem" argument is a "logical fallacy" when its sole purpose is to replace rigorous, well-documented, logical argument. 

I use "ad hominem" argument -- apart from logical argument -- as an adjunct to rigorous, well-documented argument.

Why?

It works.

*****

You question the validity/pertinence of my claim concerning the epochal efficacy of U.S. Army Chief Counsel Joseph Welch's ad hominem attack on Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare of the 1950s..  

I was born in 1947 and grew up in a social and political milieu saturated by continual reference -- all across the culture -- to the fact that Welch's attack was single-handedly responsible for toppling Trump's ideological and methodological forebear, Joseph McCarthy. 

Consider "Joseph McCarthy Meets His Match" from the editors of History.com. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joseph-mccarthy-meets-his-match 

Or consider Encyclopedia Brittannica's entry on "McCarthyism." https://www.britannica.com/topic/McCarthyism

10,000 More Examples Of Ad Hominem Efficacy

(... one for each of Trump's documented lies while in office.)

It is a fact -- plain as potatoes -- that Trump's successful presidential campaign used ad hominem attack as its wellspring and cornerstone. 

Indeed, "The Deplorable One" is a living advertisement for the efficacy of "ad hominem" savaging. 

Check out "Trump, King Of The Ad Hominem" - https://silvertonguetimes.com/2016/03/14/trump-king-of-the-ad-hominem/

Or, explore "Trump, In A Series Of Scathing Personal Attacks, Questions Clinton's Mental Health." https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-20160806-story.html

Concerning your "intelligent, non-ignorant" friend who voted for Trump because Hillary was a hawk... 

I think your time would be better spent acknowledging the proven utility/efficacy of ad hominem attacks, while dedicating your suasive efforts to the commonplace fallacy of "single issue voting." 

Clearly Hillary would have been a "hawk on Putin," whereas Trump, without a whimper, pre-surrendered to the murderous, KGB thug-kleptocrat leader of a hostile state. 

And why not? 

Despite A Number Of Loose Screws, Trump Isn't Crazy Enough To Collude. He Didn't Have To.

https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2019/04/despite-number-of-loose-screws-trump.html

As a native New Yorker, I have always known Trump to be this generation's "P.T. Barnum," constantly on the lookout for the "sucker born every minute." 

Devious Donald's personal history enables me to affirm that any "smart, non-ignorant" person who simply "took the time" to probe Trump's past would have seen -- "with the clarity of Lake Baikal" -- that Cheater-in-Chief is a narcissist megalomaniac with multiple character flaws who can not -- in any way -- be trusted.

As for your other Trump-supporting friend - the libertarian - it is objectively "stupid and ignorant" to "hate taxes." 

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" and your friend doesn't want to pay them. 

The math here is not complicated.

Again, I encourage you to invite your "smart, non-ignorant" friends to participate in this conversation so they have opportunity to state their unedited reasons for supporting Trump.

Why do I have "this feeling" you will not extend the invitation? Or they will refuse to participate?

That said, I am always ready to be surprised, and hope I'm very surprised in this instance.

As for Godwin's Law... 

You insinuate that it is somehow unfair to reference the 20th century's most important politician because doing so is, apparently, a "rhetorical no-no" that only serves to muddy the waters. 

Consider.

Hitler is a transcendentally significant historical, political and cultural touchstone bearing an unusual resemblance to Trump, particularly in the context of Hitler's alliance with Mussolini. 

Do your agree? 

Or do you disagree?

In any event, the question you artfully dodge still stands: "Who knows what might have been different if 'the good Germans' had lifted their voices en masse in ad hominem attack on Adolf Hitler?" (Notably, an analogous "en masse shout" kept Hillary Clinton out of power.)

Finally, I had originally overlooked the importance that you (and Fred) place on my reference to "Trumpistas," even though the importance of this term was "hiding" in plain sight.

I believe that "Trumpista" and "Trumpism" are the specific referents most needed so contemporary Americans can "call things by their true name."

Note.

Trump and his followers are neither "Republican" nor "conservative." In consequence, these antiquated referents fundamentally mis-represent what's taking place on "the right side of the aisle."

On the other hand, in a nation which would wisely follow Canada's bilingual lead by making Spanish an official language, the lexical method of Spanish is to name followers of a political movement by adding the suffix "-ista" to the corresponding noun. 

"English Is Not The Official Language Of The United States": https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/06/16/english-is-not-the-official-language-of-the-us/  (And according to Europe's late 18th century "treaty system," Hillsborough was incorporated while North Carolina was still a Spanish colony. https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/lucas-vasques-de-ayllon-1475-1526/)

In Mexico, where the best-known political parties are PRI and PAN, members of the former are called "Priistas," and members of the latter are called "Panistas." 

"Trumpista" is not only a PERFECT expression for a movement led by an egomaniac who wants his name emblazoned on every tall, phallic building he owns. I also have no doubt Trump himself would love the nomenclature.

It is also true that the Spanish "tinge" to the word "Trumpista" is unusually apt for devotees whose cause celebre is building a Tex-Mex wall (as ineffective as the Maginot Line in World War II).

Why are you being so "precious" about an excellent neologism -- at the very moment a neologism is needed?

If nothing else, people should be reminded that Trump's followers are members of a personality cult, and that it is as much of a dodge to avoid the word "Trumpista" as it is to use "White Nationalism" where "White Supremacy" is more accurate.

A "Trumpista" is exactly what a Trump supporter is.

Two personal observations...

1.) When "Obamacare" emerged as a right-wing epithet, I delighted in the term -- and still do. 

"Obamacare" was a much better "handle" for the discussion of changing American healthcare than "The Affordable Care Act." (I will note in passing that Obamacare now has 28% more citizens who approve it than oppose it.)

2.) When Trump made political hay out of his ad hominem attack on Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry, "Pocahantas" immediately became my name of choice. 

Go Pocahantas!

Perhaps the most important "background element" to keep in mind is that I have written more intellectually-rigorous, amply documented criticisms of "Trumpistas" and "Trumpism" than anyone you know. (I refer you to my blog: http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/)

Make no mistake.

I am completely in favor of using the time-honored tools of intelligent, factually-detailed argument to illuminate "The Lord of Lies." ("Trumpistas Don't Just Lie. They Are Hostile To Truth." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/10/lies-lies-lies-lies-compendium-of-pax.html)

But since "The Lord of Lies" embodies living proof of "ad hominem" efficacy, we would be foolish not to take a page from "The Master's" playbook.

Like many important issues, Truth is not always straightforward. 

All of us know the phrase "fighting fire with fire." It is a well-established fact that there are times when it is the best -- if not only -- effective technique. https://upolitics.com/news/trump-draws-criticism-for-suggesting-french-fight-notre-dame-fire-with-flying-water-tankers/

But we are less aware of another truth -- frequently manifest in pharmacology -- that "paradoxical reactions" are both real and powerful. (Ancient Chinese sage Lao Tze -- the unwitting founder of Taoism -- said "The profoundest truths are paradoxial.")

Let's not fight this battle with one hand tied behind our backs.

Rather, let us learn from Trump who, if nothing else, is a genius at using ad hominem attack to decisive political advantage. 

********************************************************

On a lighter note...

If you do not know "The Borowitz Report," I encourage you to explore his political genius -- a genius that sees "everything" as grist for the comedic mill. 

It is my longstanding observation that a signal difference between "the left and right side of the aisle" is that "leftist" comedians are routinely funny, whereas "right-wing" "comedians" recall petulant middle-schoolers trying to restore "the magic" of early adolescence.

In any event, I am confident Borowitz would howl at the proposition that there is no ground to be gained by using the word "Trumpista."

Of course Borowitz could be wrong. Even counterproductive.

Nevertheless, he's my man.

It's okay to take off the gloves Zach.

Remember: "A liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight."

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Accuses Media of Anti-Liar Bias Satire from The Borowitz Report https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sarah-huckabee-sanders-accuses-media-of-anti-liar-bias “From their obsession with fact-checking to their relentless attacks on falsehoods, the media have made no secret of their bias,” Sanders said. “It’s open season on liars in America.” ************************************************************ Here is the rest of the Facebook exchange that led to the A-Z discussion above.  Don't miss the Trump memes at the bottom of this page. Alan Archibald April 16 at 12:04 AM ·  It seems to me that most Trumpistas are hostile to traditional American values starting with Lincoln's appeal to "the better angels of our nature." Nothing reveals Trump's heart more readily than his vituperative appeal to "the worst angels of our nature." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/…/donald-trump-holds-li… Joseph Campbell April 6 at 5:21 PM 4Fer Fernández Gonza, Leigh Sturman and 2 others 7 Comments2 Shares Like CommentShare Comments FM: But isn't designating a population ("Trumpistas") as hostile to American values exactly the same as the pic above? Would that be saying that anyone who supports him or voted for him is Un-American? The thing is, the character that Trump plays absolute…See More Like  · Reply  · 3d ZZ:Just responding to the first part of what you said, I do agree with the spirit: using dismissive, antagonistic, name-calling to try to make some sort of point seems counterproductive and just plain immature. But to be fair it's not the same as the thi…See More Like  · Reply  · 2d Alan Archibald You probably know the quip: "A liberal is someone who doesn't know enough to take his own side in a fight." Fact: The barbarians are inside the gates. …See More QUOTES.NET Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf: By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly… Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf: By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed. Like  · Reply  · Remove Preview  · 2d ZZ: That Trump is an inveterate liar, a person of low moral character, etc., I think is more or less indisputable. Evidence of it abounds in all of his life's doings: marriages, businesses, personal conduct, etc. I am very willing to accept rule of law be…See More Like  · Reply  · 2d Alan Archibald Here is my reply to Zach's post. "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem I spend at least 30 hours a week studying American politics and participating in "genuine discussion of the topic at hand" i.e., Donald Trump and his political movement. However, I also use ad hominem argument. Why? Because "character, motive and other attributes" are essential qualities in elected representatives and "character," "motive" and "authority" need to be addressed directly. Indeed "character" is linchpin in any discussion of political representatives and it is precisely in the domain of character that Trump should be characterized in an ad hominem way. (I am not saying that criticism should be limited to ad hominem "attacks" and I will further comment on this issue below.) Before detailing some of the "character" traits and "motives" that, by my lights, require categorical condemnation as an adjunct to rigorous elucidation of his insanely irrational, totally random and constantly changing "arguments" - http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../david-brooks... - let me answer your core question directly without getting lost in a welter of detail. In your recent post, you quote me correctly: "Sometimes ad hominem attack is not just acceptable but necessary..." You then say: "That is not my experience at all. What is your evidence for that claim?" Consider. The last time the United States suffered under a politician as abominable as Trump was in the 1950s when Wisconsin's Republican Senator Joe McCarthy was pumping "The Red Scare," attacking all manner of American citizens as "communist agents." After years of this "reign of terror," Joseph Nye Welch, chief counsel of the U.S. Army - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Welch - made the following ad hominem attack in a congressional hearing, a comment that turned the tide on Trump's "spiritual" forebear, Joseph McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?, said Welch. "Have you left no sense of decency?" https://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee.../welch-mccarthy.html This use of ad hominem attack was not a piddling event. In fact, I cannot recall another moment in post-war America where a single person's comment (to wit, an ad hominem attack) had such momentous -- even salvific -- domestic impact. Indeed, no other person by dint of his (or her) public political argument has come close to the epochal moment in which Mr. Welch made his ad hominem attack on Joe McCarthy (and McCarthyism), saving America from a bad man with bad ideas and bad policies. An aside... Senator McCarthy's chief legal counsel Roy Cohn taught Trump his "double down on falsehood method": Sen. Joe McCarthy's Lawyer Roy Cohn Taught Trump To Be A Cutthroat SOB http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../sen-joe-mccarthys... Two other points... In American jurisprudence, there is significant -- perhaps categorical -- divergence between "criminal law" and "civil law." In "criminal law" the burden of proof demands demonstration of one's case "beyond reasonable doubt." In "civil law," the burden of proof is "the preponderance of evidence," a much less exacting standard. I hold that "criminal law" is analagous to "genuine discussion of the topic in hand," whereas ''civil law" is analagous to ad hominem attack in which the basis of said attack should be "the preponderance of evidence" as perceived in the "informed conscience" of anyone who pays close attention to politics and who knows that "the rules of intellectual rigor" trump the visceral fear-mongering of people who should be attacked ad hominem as an adjunct to rigorous expostulation that finds evidentiary fault with the ideas, policies and ideologies of these reprehensible people. Concerning your assertion: "I know for a fact that not all of (Trump's followers) are stupid, nor ignorant, nor racist." Where is your demonstration of proof? Are any of these "non-ignorant, non-racist" Trump followers willing to "go on record," supplying us with their reasons, rationale and evidence? (If nothing else, I encourage you to ask them. One way or another, their replies will be informative.) Clearly, the distinction between "stupid" and "ignorant" is a crucial semantic fulcrum. "Stupid" usually refers to limited "intellectual capacity" whereas "ignorant" means "to ignore." With astonishing regularity, people who are "not stupid" can be hermetically ignorant. Carl Jung made a keen observation. Unlike traditional "Judeo-Christian" moral theology in which a person is not deemed culpable if s/he is unaware of the evil in which s/he participates, Jung argued that all humans have a responsibility to become aware of the moral dimensions in which they live, and that failure to "inform one's conscience" is a morally culpable failure. I will illustrate Jung's point by brief discussion of "good Germans" in the Third Reich. These exemplary citizens would never consider themselves racist, nor would their neighbors consider them racists. Yet "silence is consent" and their "unwitting" "witness" to the horrors of the Third Reich made them not only racist sympathizers but made them collaborators in holocaustal mass murder. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/silence+means+consent "The waters" get very deep, very fast. At minimum, I argue that ad hominem attack (in which the burden of proof is analogous to the evidentiary burden of "civil law") is an indispensable adjunct to intellectually rigorous "discussion of the topic in hand." "Left jab, right cross." Who knows what might have been different if "the good Germans" had lifted their voices en masse in ad hominem attack on Adolf Hitler? What I propose "by the light of reason" -- and what I assert from the "preponderance of evidence" -- is that Donald Trump is a very sick man who -- even in the absence of psychiatric diagnosis -- should be decried as an unhinged maniac who constitutes a national security threat of the highest order. I also assert that those who support him -- however smart they may be -- are willing participants in a white supremacist catastrophe. I encourage you to invite those Trumpistas whom you "know for a fact" to be neither "stupid, nor ignorant, nor racist" to join this conversation. I am eager to hear -- first hand -- what they have to say in defense of The Deplorable One. EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Ad hominem - Wikipedia Ad hominem - Wikipedia Like  · Reply  · Remove Preview  · 2d ZZ: It's a stretch for me to accept one line from a larger exchange and say, "That means it's OK/effective to make personal attacks." Welch stood firm and showed principal, in public, at a time when people were waiting for someone to do that. It seems to …See More Like  · Reply  · 1d "The Short List" Of Best Trump Memes Created By "Pax On Both Houses" paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-short-list-of-best-trump-memes.html Nov 21, 2018 - Pulitzer Prize-Winning Investigative Journalist David Cay Johnston Calls Trump "One Of The Most Successful Criminals In America"And "The ... Pax on both houses: Compendium Of Best Pax Memes About Trump ... paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/12/compendium-of-best-pax-memes-about.html Dec 26, 2018 - Compendium Of Best Pax Memes About Trump-Putin. Image result for "pax on both houses" putin. Compendium Of Best Pax Posts About The ... Pax on both houses: Reprise: "Must-See" Video Mashup Of Trump's ... paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/.../reprise-must-see-video-mashup-revealing.ht... Jul 20, 2018 - Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, And The Madness Of The Good Christians' Neo-Confederacy ... Best Trump Memes From "Pax On Both Houses". Pax on both houses: Trump Mendacity Memes paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2017/10/trump-mendacity-memes.html Oct 6, 2017 - http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2017/05/donald-trump-felon-re-visiting-trump.html ... Best Trump Memes From "Pax On Both Houses". Best Trump Memes From "Pax On Both Houses" http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2016/09/best-trump-memes-from-pax-on-both-houses.html "You Have NO Choice," A New Frame For George Carlin's Classic Shtick "The American Dream" http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/06/you-have-no-choice-new-frame-for-george.html Write a reply...