Need to Deal With Rhetorical Brushback Pitches 

Too often political debates, social media, and other public discussions and debates are disrupted and distorted by overheated rhetoric. Certain words and phrases have been used to label and delegitimize opponents, shut off debate, and thwart any serious discussion of the merits of, or pros and cons about, an issue or situation. Examples of such phrases include the following: 

“addiction to X” (e.g., addiction to guns, addiction to oil) 

“extreme,” “extremist” 

“obsession with X” (e.g., obsession with guns, obsession with religion) 

“X-denier” (e.g., climate change denier, election denier, science denier, vaccine denier) “X-phobic” (e.g., homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, xenophobic) 

“No reasonable person thinks that . . .” 

“No reasonable person supports . . .” 

“No fair-minded person . . .” 

“It is only common sense to . . .” 

“It defies common sense to . . .” 

Such words and phrases are variations of ad hominem labels and arguments — labels and arguments that explicitly or implicitly attack an opponent personally instead of addressing the merits or pros and cons of an opponent’s argument or proposal. The use of ad hominem attacks is “as old as the hills” and is a form of rhetorical tactic that was used in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and has continued to be used up to modern times. The use of such words and phrases in modern American society can be analogized to the brushback pitch in baseball — where a pitcher deliberately throws the ball close to the body of the batter in an effort to get the batter to flinch and not focus on hitting the ball, to intimidate the batter, or both. Rhetorical brushback pitches serve similar purposes in debates and discussions, as well as the additional purposes of (1) diverting attention from the merits or pros and cons of an issue, and (2) trying to “poison the well” by denigrating or demonizing an opponent as being unworthy of being listened to or taken seriously. 

In the United States, the functioning of our representative democracy depends on the ability of citizens to engage in discussions and debates about the many issues that affect their lives, their families, their communities, their states and our nation. The right to vote and hold elected representatives and other governmental officials accountable to adhere to their oaths of office and to the rule of law would be diminished if citizens do not have the ability to meaningfully participate in discussions and debates relevant to elections, laws and regulations affecting them, and whether or not governmental institutions are functioning properly and effectively within the bounds of the rule of law. The use of ad hominem labels and arguments interferes with, and diminishes, the ability to meaningfully participate in such discussions and debates. 

To resist the use of ad hominem labels and attacks aimed at shutting down or squelching a debate or discussion of the merits or pros and cons of an issue or proposal, people should consider doing the following: 

(1) Recognize words and phrases that are being used to (a) insult or intimidate people into self censorship, or (b) silence or short-circuit substantive, meaningful discussion of the merits or pros and cons of an issue. 

(2) Develop a “thick skin” to resist being distracted or intimidated by such rhetorical brushback pitches. 

(3) Don’t self-censor yourself just because someone has used a rhetorical brushback pitch against you. Shrug off rhetorical brushback pitches and focus on stating your arguments and reasons for the position you are taking in a discussion or debate about the merits and pros and cons of an issue or proposal. 

(4) Don’t give satisfaction to a person who uses a rhetorical brushback pitch against you by falling for their ploy. Wasting your time trying to defend yourself against any rhetorical brushback pitches directed at you will give them the satisfaction of knowing they have succeeded in distracting or preventing you from expressing your opinion and reasons about the merits and pros and cons of a particular issue or proposal. 

(5) Think of ways to alert and persuade uncommitted or undecided people about the meaning and significance of such rhetorical brushback pitches that seek to silence or derail meaningful debate or discussion of the merits or pros and cons of issues or proposals. 

(6) Don’t criticize the use of rhetorical brushback pitches against you and then use them against other people. 

Years ago, I ran across a passage in a book on medical decision making that noted the need for doctors to understand and explain to patients that there are (1) some medical problems that can be cured or resolved, and (2) some medical problems for which there is no known cure or resolution, and which can only be managed to minimize or reduce pain, suffering, or other adverse effects on the patient. The same distinction can be applied by analogy to ad hominem arguments and labels. Given the age-old use of ad hominem arguments and labels, I have no illusions that following my suggestions could stop their use. But, I hope that my suggestions will help people recognize the nature and dangers of ad hominem arguments and labels and givepeople some ideas of how to deal with such arguments and labels to minimize or reduce the harmful effects they can have on political debates, social media, and other public discussions and debates.