Consistency

As the contours of the upcoming US election begins to take shape, we will be visiting the subjects of rhetoric and argumentation again and again in the context of analyzing candidate speeches, debates, ad campaigns and other forms of written, oral and even visual communications.

Even those not involved with the study of critical thinking tend to enjoy these subjects, especially since they involve verbal jousting (like what you might find in a courtroom drama) as well as the fun related to finding examples to illustrate various fallacies, my favorites being Woody Allen’s “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Thus, all men are Socrates” (a Syllogistic fallacy) and Grocho Marx’s “I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know” (an example of Amphiboly).

But before we start down that road, we should note an underlying human characteristic that informs our response to rhetoric and many other stimuli we are exposed to in our daily lives: an overwhelming desire for consistency.

Like cognitive biases, the desire for consistency (or, at the very least, a discomfort with inconsistency) seems to be hard wired into the human brain. Many logical arguments (from mathematical proofs to philosophical debates) satisfactorily terminate when it can be demonstrated that they end or lead to an inconsistency (such as A equals not A). Indeed, the Law of Non-Contradition is one of the foundational principles of all logic. And even our sense of humor seems to be built around the surprise associated with inconsistent behavior (such as the actions taken by a third man walking into a bar which does not jibe with the behavior of the first two).

In politics, this drive for consistency underlies the most powerful accusation one can hurl at an opponent or their supporters: that of hypocrisy. For while accusing an opponent of being a liar is considered poor form (and often rebounds on the accuser, making them come off as ill tempered and nasty), accusations of hypocrisy almost always leave the accused on the defensive and are thus powerful tools in the politicians rhetorical arsenal.

The foundations for an accusation of hypocrisy can take many forms, such as the politician who votes against school choice programs while sending his or her own children to expensive private schools or a finger-wagging moralist legislator (or preacher) caught in a extra-marital affair. But inconsistencies can also be subtler or exist in the “eye of the beholder” of just one person or group.

For example, an elected official’s failure to “live up to their campaign rhetoric” (by voting for something they vowed to vote against during the campaign season, for example) often underlies accusations of dread hypocrisy during the next campaign season which resonate with votes who tend to look for consistent behavior as a sign of strong character. But now we get into more complicated territory since campaign promises can be vague and open to interpretation, and legislation is often the result of compromise between competing goods, meaning a perceived inconsistency may be the result of incomplete information or an oversimplified (and sometimes self-serving) interpretation of events (i.e., “spin”).

The drive to see consistency in leaders (especially those whom we support) and inconsistency/hypocricy in others (especially those we do not support) also taps into discomfort with our own inconsistent behavior. This can include anything from ignoring the homeless person asking for a handout (despite our self-identification as being generous and caring) to cutting corners at work (despite our belief in our own dedication and commitment) to thinking inappropriate thoughts about a stranger’s attractive appearance (despite our self-awareness of being a happily married and committed spouse).

In other words, we seem to be looking for a political leader to demonstrate a level of consistency that we instinctively know first-hand is not possible by a member of the human species. This inconsistency in our own desire for consistency is even more complicated since anyone who has risen to the level of being able to run for President has no doubt had to make compromises along the way that the rest of us never have to confront.

Now a partisan voter has a simple solution to this problem: ignoring inconsistencies that can lead to accusations of hypocrisy on the part of candidates they like, but highlighting and dwelling on similar inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of those they dislike.

But as critical thinkers, we are obliged to recognize (from first-hand experience) that any human being is made up of multiple interests, desires and motivations which can legitimately be in conflict without rising to a level of hypocrisy that would imply a significant character flaw. And we must also recognize that the political process (which is ultimately about compromise between different opinions, many of which represent competing goods) means that absolute consistency is not possible and may not even desirable for a candidate who must lead a nation of 300,000,000+ people who neither individually or collectively represent a single (or consistent) set of beliefs.