Binary Politics

An unfortunate by-product of our two-party system is that it encourages a binary mind-set that reduces complex issues into a shouting match--red versus blue. In America, we are all too quick to label each other as "liberal" or "conservative," a distinction that manifests itself in the kinds of books we read, the TV we watch, and even the cars we purchase. Four years ago, The Club for Growth taunted Howard Dean as being a "latte drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading" liberal, as though each item on their list was itself a symptom of some terrible disease.

In this year's campaign, we're replaying that Pavlovian call-and-response yet again. As the respective fields for both the Republican and Democratic nominations have whittled down to two possible choices, the binary rhetoric has heated up. And it's not just between red and blue, inter-party binary thinking is now in full effect. A perverse logic takes hold in such an environment, in which supporters of a certain candidate steel themselves against any and all criticisms. The Bush fallacy of "You're either with us, or you're against us," is more firmly entrenched than we'd like to admit.The most glaring example of binary thinking takes place among supporters and enemies of Hillary Clinton. To many, she is the embodiment of evil. To others, she's the smartest, strongest woman on the planet. As someone who voted for Hillary when I lived in New York, but who has decided that I prefer her rival, I have written posts critical of how she has run her campaign of late. In many of these articles, I have also said that I may end up voting for her again, should she win the nomination. In short, I think the Democrats can do better, but I don't believe that Western Civilization will come to an end if Hillary is elected president.

To criticize Hillary Clinton, however, runs contrary to the binary rules that were laid out in the Ken Star years. Either you were a Republican who was convinced Bill Clinton had committed a pattern of deceit and law breaking, or you were a Democrat who thought the investigation was nothing but a trumped up witch hunt. Both, it was often argued, could not simultaneously be true. This is what is known in philosophical circles as a "False Dilemma".

The fallacy goes like this:

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

Politics is filled with false dilemmas. Take New York NOW's strongly worded press release denouncing Senator Kennedy's recent endorsement of Barack Obama, which began:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal.

Really? Ted Kennedy supporting a guy with a 100% favorable rating from NARAL is the ultimate betrayal? It couldn't have possibly been worse from a Pro-Choice point-of-view, even if Kennedy had endorsed, say, Mitt Romney? This is a silly trap. To Hillary's supporters, if you're a man who is not voting for Hillary, you're sexist. If you're a woman doing the same, you're not enlightened. Ditto for Obama and the black population. If you wonder aloud whether America has evolved to the point where it can elect an African American, you're giving into racist sentiments.

The point is, we get carried away by the all or nothing grip of binary thinking. The politics of division is incredibly effective, and fast becomes orthodoxy. Witness John McCain and Mitt Romney each trying desperately to affix the liberal moniker upon the other this past week. Romney boasted that he was so un-liberal that he wouldn't have needed more than a nano-second to say no to the offer of becoming John Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain lapsed into his straight-talk cynical chuckle and responded,

"Certainly his big government mandated health care system for the state of Massachusetts ... is not conservative."

Yes, indeed, we are a nation addicted to labels.