Passing the Logic Test

AMERICANS WOULD do well to prime themselves with two Latin terms as they go into the final election throes. One is ‘non sequitur’ and the other, ‘reductio ad absurdum’. Together, they would help us compress the most passionate expressions in the presidential debates into two crisp expressions, with no leftover palaver. Try the following examples for shape and size.

If the retaliation to the characterisation of a candidate’s election rally as “boring” is that migrants are eating pets in Ohio, then that is a non sequitur for there is no link between the two. Again, to argue that migrants are destroying America would imply the absurdity that the country be returned to Native Americans. This clearly is a reductio ad absurdum form of reasoning.

Not convinced? Here are some more. When asked about past

economic performance, if the answer is to promise a better middle-class life in future, that would be a non sequitur as the response is unrelated to the question. Next, for a reductio ad absurdum. If leaving Afghanistan was wise as the war was costing millions, then it is absurd waging wars for all wars cost tonnes of money.

Who said politics is not an intellectual pursuit? We have

just learnt two brainy foreign terms, thanks to the presidential debates. These Latin phrases help us realise how flawed some of the most passionate lines were. It’s not edifying to choose between presidential hopefuls when non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums are littered in their squabbles.

Yet, if we were looking for an objective measure of who was better, then the one whose delivery had fewer non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums should win. Sadly, this is rarely the case in popular appreciation of election speeches. People are so moved by fur flying and sentimental grandstanding that nobody notices, let alone counts, the non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums.

For a demonstration of this we should each make our own tally of non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums from the Harris-Trump debate. Then we should match our scores with our subjective appreciation to judge our objectivity. If it’s too much bother to go back to those tapes, don’t worry, you will have another chance soon when the vice presidential nominees face each other.

The winner could also be judged on the basis of who was more truthful. Accusing Trump of sales tax imposition and blaming Biden for growing unemployment were inaccurate. These, however, need research help, but counting non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums can be done by us on the spot. Unconsciously, most viewers did so too, for they perceptibly twitched when such statements were made.

Polls, including Republican-leaning Fox TV, concur that Kamala Harris fared better than Donald Trump. Interestingly, Kamala won, in these estimates, because her stage presence was better and she riled Trump enough to anger him. This maybe was why Trump’s non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums poured out, especially on migration and abortion, to his disadvantage.

Now that the debate is done, people are, by and large, returning to their original positions. Trump and Kamala have other fish to fry; it’s the sideline celebrities who just go on and on. At the end, it all boils down to sentiment. And the two sentiments hurtling non sequiturs and exhibiting reductio ad absurdums the most are: migrants damaging the country versus the right of women over their bodies.

Totalling non sequiturs and reductio ad absurdums requires a modicum of education, not always found. Take college degrees, for instance. Twenty-five-year-old foreign-born Americans are more likely to have a four-year university degree than those who are born in the US. In Republican states, islands of Democratic support exist only where college graduates are in numbers.

This is true in most of the US. For example, in San Antonio, Cleveland and Raleigh, which are in Republican Texas, Ohio and North Carolina, respectively, the Democrats won rather decisively. If Georgia is a swing state today, it is primarily because there are many collegegoers and graduates in Atlanta whereas the rest of the state is clearly Republican and pro-Trump.

What probably adds to the tension is that many of these college degree-holders are also foreign-born. No wonder JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, said in 2022: “Universities are the enemy.”

About The Author

Dipankar Gupta

Dipankar Gupta is a sociologist. He is the author of, among other titles, Q.E.D.: India Tests Social Theory and Checkpoint Sociology: A Cultural Reading of Policies and Politics