Clearly, there is nothing wrong with a rebuttal in general—since days ancient, expression of rational disagreement has been central to philosophical debate, understanding, and change. The issue is the nature of the SOTU rebuttal since the late 1980s: it is written before the State of the Union speech has even been given, and is always given by the opposition party. How can one decide that they disagree with a speech before they have heard it? How can one provide specific counterarguments to specific points of disagreement? The fact of the matter is, one cannot.
A prewritten SOTU rebuttal is not a rebuttal at all. It is vague and ambiguous rambling, made purposely thus so as to be a "one-size-fits-all" response to whatever the president might happen to say. It is a rebuttal to the president (whoever may occupy the position at the time) rather than a response to a particular address. That kind of response can be given any day of the year; misnaming it a "rebuttal" to a speech you have never even heard is divisive. Deciding you disagree before you've even heard the speech is senseless, whether it is Joe Kennedy III or Mario Díaz-Balart who offers the dissent. It amounts to one huge ad hominem fallacy.
The SOTU rebuttal should return to how the first response to the State of the Union address was given, five days after LBJ's 1966 address; adequate time to craft a thoughtful rebuttal rather than an extended logical fallacy. Or it could take the same form as the 1972 response: a panel of congressmen answering unrehearsed questions from callers.
We cannot close our ears and refuse to listen just because someone is not of the same party, ideology, gender or race. If we continue to do so we will destroy ourselves. American politics need to return to the origins of Western philosophy, where arguments are judged on their merits, and not by the political party of the mouth delivering them.
No comments:
Post a Comment