5 Political Non Sequiturs Everyone Needs to Know
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the Asian American News Network or its affiliates.
In Latin, non sequitur translates to “it does not follow.” In today’s political arena, where slogans and mantras are mindlessly thrown around, it becomes increasingly difficult to decide whether certain arguments or positions actually “follow” a direct line of logic. Likewise, said slogans and mantras may appeal ethically, emotionally, and even rationally. At the end of the day, however, such slogans and mantras are not what they seem and are actually threats to healthy political discourse. I’ve compiled a list of five such “political non sequiturs” that I believe you have probably heard in the past years, months, or even weeks. Understanding and unraveling the logic (or, more accurately, the illogic) in such statements will ultimately lead you to be a more critical and informed citizen.
1. “If you vote for candidate C, you are really voting for candidate A. If you refrain from voting, you are really voting for candidate B.”
This slogan is a favorite come election time. Since the United States is governed by a two-party system, both major political parties have been guilty of using this common trope to coerce people to vote for their respective party’s candidate. Remember, no candidate or party is EVER entitled to your vote. Deciding to vote for a candidate that is not part of either major political party is your choice and should not be seen as an endorsement/repudiation of either major political party. Likewise, if you decide to abstain from voting during an election cycle for any reason, whether that reason be moral, political, or practical, you are not actually “indirectly voting” for any of the major candidates. Ironically, the same people who mindlessly repeat this political non sequitur are often the same people who are in favor of more third-party political viability.
2. “Silence is violence. If you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Being for justice is not enough, you must actively oppose injustice.”
First of all, speech is not violence, and speech never will be violence. Speech can inspire and promote violence. Speech can even advocate for violence. Therefore, there are some limitations to your 1st Amendment rights. However, speech is not violence and, consequently, neither is silence.
In a civil society, citizens need to be given a large girth on matters. Especially in today’s political culture full of issues and faux-issues, information and misinformation, citizens need their own space more than ever before. For example, if you are a passionate supporter of democracy but, for whatever reason, are not actively embracing democratic reforms in, say, Hong Kong, that doesn’t make you an “oppressor,” nor does it mean that you disdain democracy. A simple explanation could be that you are just uninformed about the situation. Likewise, the same applies to any other issue. Furthermore, it’s important to realize that this political non sequitur is oftentimes utilized to cudgel citizens into supporting political organizations and policies that have nothing to do with the real concerns presented. Remember, it’s ultimately up to yourself to examine such factors before you weigh in on matters.
Lastly, it is important to remember the context that these quotes are often taken from. Desmond Tutu issued the following quote in South Africa while enduring apartheid, a system where Coloureds and Blacks didn’t even receive voting rights: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Today, there are few settings in the world that remotely resemble the horrible conditions that Tutu suffered.
3. “If policy ______ saves even one life, it’s worth it.”
When discussing policy, we must not solely take into account the policy’s benefits, but we must also take into account its costs. Taxpayer dollars or resources devoted to a particular policy could’ve been devoted to other policies that benefit more citizens. In economic terms, this alternative reality is known as the opportunity cost. The most inefficient and corrupt government programs could “save a life,” but would the programs be worth the costs of other human lives? The answer is no: The resources devoted to such programs should be considered wasteful because of better alternatives that could save more lives.
In reality, when a politician repeats this common political non sequitur, what he/she is really asking you to do is to ignore the costs that are plaguing his/her policies. By only focusing on the positives, we lose sight of the holistic picture. And to be informed and outstanding citizens, we must see the holistic picture clearly.
4. “When I say X, what I really mean is Y! When you say A, what you really mean is B!”
No. Purposefully misleading people when it’s politically expedient is synonymous with lying.
5.“Black/Hispanic/Asian/Any minority people can’t be racist. Racism requires power.”
This non sequitur can be considered to be more cultural than political. Nevertheless, it’s still seen in much of today’s political discourse. For example, academics and activists such as Michael Eric Dyson have doubled-down on such rhetoric.
On face value, such statements are nonsensical. Racism, antagonism to people on the basis of membership to a particular racial or ethnic group, does not require institutional power.
In the mid-20th century, Chinese landowners had to endure “struggle sessions.” During these struggle sessions, peasants sadistically accused landowners of the most outrageous, made-up crimes. Landowners were forced to admit to these crimes if they didn’t want to suffer physical or verbal abuse from the mob. Maoist struggle sessions really demonstrates that even the lowest of the lows, the “powerless” peasants, still have their fists and their voices. “Power” isn’t a prerequisite for socio-economic animus, and it certainly isn’t a prerequisite for racial antagonism. Because at the end of the day, if you’re on the receiving end of one of those fists (because of racial or socio-economic ill will), nothing else matters.
Ultimately, it is up to yourself to follow the merits of each argument to the ballot box. If an argument doesn’t “follow,” it doesn’t deserve your vote. Political non sequiturs aren’t associated with a particular party, faction, or group: These untruths are ubiquitous in our discourse. And that’s the problem. Only through unraveling and illuminating such untruths can we gradually take back our dialogue, gradually take back our discourse.
