Trojan Slogans

Implausible ideology snuck in under the guise of an applause line

Not for the first time, Vivek Ramaswamy said something stupid:

I think this is disastrous, that we are protecting against an invasion across somebody else’s border when we should use those same military resources to prevent the invasion of our own southern border.

Bill Maher had an old clip lamenting bath salts conservatives—people who say things so dumb that they seem to be high on bath salts. Vivek had a bath salts conservatism moment—wow is that statement crazy! For one, there is no invasion across our Southern border. I don’t know if Vivek is talking about the flow of drugs or people, but neither of those constitutes an invasion.

For another, Vivek here proposes using the weapons that we’re using in Ukraine on our southern border. Really? You want to use cluster bombs and Abrams tanks and aerial bombers on our southern border? Those are important weapons if you’re fighting an actual war against a country like Russia, but not if you’re fighting against stray bands of immigrants.

But despite that, it was a huge applause line. It flows well thematically, and sounds quite good until you think about it for five seconds. I think this is true of a lot of slogans. Very often, applause lines will sound good, but when one thinks about them, they totally fall apart. I came across another example recently. Some fellow called Billionaire psycho wrote a lengthy case against the sexual revolution, arguing that things are worse for men than they used to be, and that there are various structural factors that have led to the disintegration of traditional families and healthy relationships. In the middle of this, when he is lamenting the alleged problems with claims of equal treatment of the sexes, he writes:

In a world of nominal equality, where men and women are supposedly identical peers, and therefore financial competitors scrambling for the same narrow spectrum of profitable careers, why do men owe anything, to anyone?

Helping your competitor is a fatal mistake.

. . .

Men and women are rivals for a shrinking pool of white-collar, high-prestige jobs. Many traditional careers have been offshored, eliminated, or automated.

Both in legal terms, and practical terms, women are “empowered” by preferential treatment. 

What courtesy should men extend to their rivals? Western Civilization is dying, and there’s a limited number of lifeboats.  

(Notably, he says this logic isn’t morally right, but is a descriptively accurate account of how people act). (Also, obviously, quoting this is not endorsing it).

This sounds sort of good in context. He’s criticizing the sexual revolution’s claims to equality of the sexes, talking about how bad things are now, and then decides to connect them. Rhetorically, the point flows well. But if you stop to think about it, it’s obviously false.

For one, markets are big and often involve millions or billions of people. The odds that a person benefitting their spouse will directly harm their job prospects are minuscule and are dramatically outweighed by the level of financial support often provided between partners in a relationship. Who the heck doesn’t enter romantic relationships because they are afraid that their spouse will take their job? This is a totally bizarre claim. If this was really the explanation, then people would just date others who were . . . not in the same profession as they were. In addition, people often do help those who are in the broadest sense their competitors in the global market—I have never failed to help a friend because they are, in some sense, my competitor in the global market. This claim is just absurd.

And yet such claims are ubiquitous. When people are giving speeches or writing long essays, it’s easy to sneak in rhetorical flourishes that sound good but are total nonsense. But when people are thoroughly wrapped up in the flow of the essay, it’s hard to notice that what was said is totally ridiculous. As a result, such statements are an effective propagandistic tool—when analyzed they crumble, but in the absence of analysis, they are convincing.

So beware such rhetoric. If a line in a speech sounds especially good, take a second to pause and think about it, for there’s a high chance it’s false.