Today’s political discourse tends to be overly negative and personal. Jaded, sometimes angry pundits point to political opponents and berate them as exemplary of the other side. To be fair, sometimes they’re correct. And there’s plenty to be angry about. As a liberal, for instance, I find the willingness among some on the Right to ban abortion very frustrating - and I’m not even a woman. It’s clear that today, we, as a nation, are divided, perhaps more than ever. And I think social media plays an important role. But I’d like to focus here instead on a particular tactic employed by these merchants of division, however well-meaning some of them may be: ad hominems. If we are trying to make the world a better place, requiring us to live together in tolerance, if not harmony, then we should promote healthy discussion of ideas to let the best ones win. Instead of a battlefield, it is better to think of this contest as a marketplace of ideas. This argument, against the routine use of ad hominems, is not simply a matter of politeness. (I’m a fan of politeness. It helps to build trust interpersonally and promote order, necessities in any thriving democracy.) Rather, ad hominem is a logical fallacy, ineffective politically, and is often incorrect.

Illogical
Let’s start out easy. Or, at least, it would seem easy. Ad hominem is an example of an informal logical fallacy. Why? From the Latin for “to the man,” ad hominem is a personal attack that purports to discredit a claim made by the attacked person.

Obviously, a person is not the same thing as an idea. A person can be an incessant liar and yet tell the truth. A person can be a simpleton and have a brilliant idea. I person can be a cheat and yet have honest intentions. Simply attacking someone does not, in and of itself, tell us whether a claim made by such a person is correct, useful, or not. What disproves the claim has to do with the claim itself.  

People often conflate idea with person. Why? Well, in politics especially, ideas identify which side you’re on. So attacking a political opponent, instead of her ideas, can help one side to seemingly bring down the other, lowering its perceived status or credibility among possible voters. Many view politics as a game: gain as many points against political opponents as possible to avoid the consequences of the opponents’ policies being enacted. People don’t want to lose; politics is often polemical. A natural reaction to being attacked (either oneself or one’s side), is to attack back, creating a vicious cycle. Ad hominems are often easier, too, than dealing with complex issues and thoughtful arguments.

While an ad hominem does not, by definition, respond to the claim, a person’s character, for instance, might relate to the claim, to some limited degree. When dealing with an extraordinary claim made by a motivated pathological liar, it would be reasonable to be skeptical of the claim. For example, it would be reasonable, a priori, to be highly skeptical of Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 Presidential Election. We know he doesn’t like to lose, that he is egotistically fragile, and that he is extremely likely to lie when it serves his favor. So, while an ad hominem might correctly point out that Trump, in this case, is likely lying, it does not, however, prove the case that he is.

Ineffective
Some might say that embarrassment is a good way of persuading others. As stated, this more often makes people more reluctant to concede. We know this from personal experience; we see this on televised debates. What if, instead, one focuses on the issues, seems disinterested, and complements a bad leader, say, whenever and wherever it was honest and appropriate - and, of course, proportionately? This makes the criticism seem more credible because A) it is less likely to be distorted by emotion and B) shows some fairness in its willingness to offer some, however limited, praise of the bad leader.

For example, instead of calling Trump a dumb liar, encouraging many his sycophants to attack liberal leaders, one can consider the facts that support his claim of widespread election fraud and see if there is any need for further concern. Such a mindset would make one more likely to empathize with Trump voters, which helps one understand them better and reduce political polarization, especially if such a practice becomes widespread.   

True, when judging the competence of bad leaders, it would be useful, if honest, to call out incompetence. This informs the public on whether or not such people should be leaders. There are different ways of doing this, though. One could call the individual a moron, which we heard a lot of when Trump was running in 2015, and which didn’t work out too well. Or, one can achieve the same ends by discussing policy, the merits of ideas, and so on. Sometimes, however, a person’s character is at issue. We want honest leaders, for example. Pointing out lies is vital in a republic.

In general, though, losing a debate matters more after one’s opponent calls one a coward for not sharing one’s opinion on gun control, say. Why make it harder for people to agree with one? To embarrass them? That what it seems like to me. I get the urge. It’s emotionally gratifying. But like most such things, the feeling is ephemeral.

Moreover, these emotions can lead us astray.

Often Incorrect
Ad hominems, when expressed in heated debates, are often untrue. One common insult is to imply, if not outright say, that one’s opponent is a dunce. Really, what they often mean is that the opponent’s idea isn’t persuasive – to them. They may be right about the idea or point. But, I find, often, people who are called stupid, aren’t. For instance, many conspiracy theorists, despite saying some incredibly dumb things, exhibit a lot of intelligence. They tend to be well-researched; inquisitive; and willing to study, learn, and change their minds. There are many reasons why smart people might believe in or say stupid things: politics, religion, ideology, etc.; they might continue with a nonsensical argument because it costs too much to lose: embarrassment, being discredited, decreased political power, and so on.

Sometimes, pundits will try to justify their overly personal commentary by saying, “It’s true” and that attempts to be “polite,” as they see it, is just being politically correct. I see this on the Right and Left. Whether the personal attack is true or not is beside the point. One’s opponent may, indeed, be dumb. The utility of calling someone this, though, is low. And we risk, every time, moving others further from us. In a democracy, routinely doing this is dangerous.

In brief, being polite is important; don’t underestimate it. We must deal with other people every day. Burning bridges limits connections, which can potentially limit progress societally. Some things feel right, and may be correct, but do more harm than good, such as insulting others. What I’m advocating for isn’t easy. I’m sure I’ll be guilty of committing something that can be perceived as an ad hominem at some point, because they’re difficult to avoid, especially in reaction to being attacked personally first. But I hope to speak more constructively than not. After all, I am - like we are - only human.