Harris fields question about her changing policy positions

Analyzing the article

ABC News
red herring
ad hominem

Our Analysis: 2 Fallacies


I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.

As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager.


When asked directly if she can explain her changes in numerous policy positions, Harris claims her values have remained consistent, but does not reconcile the specific reversals in her stances on issues like fracking, assault weapons, and immigration; instead she pivots to unrelated topics like her personal background and criticizing Trump's wealth and business history, which constitute ad hominem and red herring fallacies.

1. red herring and inconsistency • Just as she did in her recent interview with Dana Bash on CNN, Harris failed to explain how it could be that her "values have not changed" despite numerous changes in major policy positions.


DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?

HARRIS: So my values have not changed. And I'm going to discuss every one -- at least every point that you've made. But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking.


Actually, Harris did not touch on "every point" mentioned by the moderator, but only fracking. And on fracking, as fact-checkers have pointed out, she did not make clear that she no longer opposed fracking in 2020 --- rather, she mentioned Biden's position on the issue.


The moderator's question about her apparent inconsistency remains unaddressed. Instead, she pivots to several other topics, such as her childhood upbringing, and her future plans if she is elected president, and some criticisms of Trump.


We covered this same sort of evasiveness in our analysis of the same question in the CNN interview, and we strongly recommend readers examine that fuller treatment.

2. ad hominem • Harris lodges a few ad hominem attacks during this segment of the debate:


Not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times.


This statement attacks Trump's character and financial history rather than addressing the substance and consistency of his policy positions.

Additionally, Harris says: ​

The true measure of the leader is the leader who actually understands that strength is not in beating people down, it's in lifting people up.


This statement indirectly attacks the character of the opposing party instead of addressing the argument or the policies being discussed, fitting the criteria of an ad hominem fallacy.

References

Comments

In order to participate in the conversation, head over to your account and setup a Screen Name
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign in.
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign up or sign in.

Disclaimer

Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'

NO AI TRAINING

Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.

Greetings! Kindly review our privacy and cookie policies to assess your preferences regarding cookie engagement.