Dysphemisms and euphemisms – it’s all in the naming when it comes to the rhetoric of a cause. So one side’s freedom-fighters are the other side’s guerillas or insurgents. And now it comes to what terms to use for those who protest much of the Trump Presidency. From the start, the term resistance was appealing for those who were sympathetic with the protester-cause. And for those who see it as mere trouble-making by sore losers, it’s obstructionism or public tantrums. Fair enough, really. What really matters is whether the folks have a point.
But that’s just it — if you think they’ve got a point, then that determines the term to use. So far, this is the sensible thought shared by many, and Varad Mehta at NRO (with a nicely barbed title, “Resistance is Facile”) makes similar remarks. But then he sees a fallacy behind it all when it comes to reporting on the matter:
There’s an element of circular reasoning involved: The media reports on the resistance because the resistance exists because the media reports on the resistance. But thinking something doesn’t make it real.
But the second part of the circle isn’t part of the question-begging, is it? That is, the media may report on the ‘resistance’ because it is happening and is pretty widespread. That’s the first part. But the second part isn’t part of the issue, is it? Moreover, the resistance doesn’t exist because the media reports on it. Rather, it’s something that people are doing on their own, organizing through social media, and so on. It’s not because CNN set up some cameras.
So, the lesson is that, to use Mehta’s words, just thinking something is circular reasoning doesn’t make it circular.