There’s a comment from a thread over at OTB that caught my attention:
The country itself needs a strategic review of our place in the world. We can no longer afford to be the only world policeman as the infrastructure of this country disintegrates and more and more people are in poverty. Off course that’s not going to happen.
Ironically, since I’m pretty sympathetic with the core claim in that comment, I was struck that I could find at least three logical fallacies in it. That’s a pretty high number for so short a comment.
Do you see them, too?
I, too, agree with the general thrust. I have no idea what you have identified, but I have several reactions:
1. “only world policeman’ — yeah, sure. But who, then, as the primary? There are still thugs out there. Dozens and dozens of nations have been busy for decades giving away social goodies to their voter constituencies while we covered their weak asses. Well, do you want to rely on France, and liberal policies have killed the goose laying the eggs. Now what? Related: Its a bitch sitting in the Big Chair. Obama and the left are great at backbench grousing. Obama is now getting schooled in being in the Big Chair. Grade so far? “F”
2. Infrastructure? You could raise taxes to the moon or reduce defense spending by half and it wouldn’t go to the “crumbling infrastructure,” except to pay off political debts……….and the credit cards. I’ve been on the lending and principal side for over 20 years now hearing about deals and government allocations to fix “the crumbling infrastructure.” Balls. Politicians buy votes with it, and roads and bridges be damned.
3. Let’s see. Poverty. Seems the “War on Poverty” has been on since 1965. Are we winning yet? No need to answer. The percentage is remarkably stable. Simply writing a check doesn’t fix it, and neither will writing a bigger one. And look at the % of the budget we actually spend on the poor. Lefties stuffed them in projects, destroyed their schools, destroyed the family structure with perverse incentives……..made excuses for their poor behavior and, felt good about themselves and their empty programs, and blamed all the failure on cruel conservatives. There will surely be a place in hell for “progressives.”
4. Gee. Policemen to protect fossil fuels in the Middle East?? Who’d-a-thunk it?? I’ve got a great idea. Let’s spend precious resources on wind mills (but not in MY backyard), solar panels (at least 78 people in AZ and So Cal will buy them) and electric cars that apparently get their electricity through magic………so we can’t at least partially divorce ourselves from these numbskulls in the Middle East.
BTW – seen the article on the polar ice cap?? Ooopsy.
And that was just top of mind.
The three fallacies I identified were tertium non datur, non sequitur, and error of fact (multiple).
1. The implication that if we spent less on the military we would necessarily spend more on infrastructure (or anything else for that matter) is an example of tertium non datur. It excludes the possibility that we might spend less on the military and no more on other things.
2. The implication that heightened military spending means that more people are poor is a non sequitur.
3. The idea that military spending and infrastructure spending are mutually exclusive is an error of fact. Look up the “National Defense Highway Act”, the empowering legislation for the interstate highway system. More military spending can mean we spend more on infrastructure.
That we can no longer afford to be the “only world policeman” seemed to imply that the author wanted the U.S. to be one of multiple world policemen. That might lower the per-unit cost of interventions, while making more interventions possible.
(I may be reading too much into the phrase, but a lot of people voicing this sentiment would simply say that the U.S. cannot afford to be the world’s policemen)
Maybe we can still be the world’s policeman…………..only just incredibly small.
This is becoming more farcical by he day.