Mad Libs is a kids game, where a familiar story has a number of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and proper names taken out, and players provide their own without knowing the story.Â It makes for great game time, and when you allow the kids liberal use of some naughty terms, things get pretty hilarious.Â (Pro tip: ‘diaper’ and ‘butt’ are always an excellent nouns to use if you’re in a pinch. But only one per story, else you’ve overplayed your hand.)
Folks use a Mad Libs strategy sometimes when making an argument by analogy.Â And so when one criticizes someone for saying something that sounds racist, you might say, “Replace all those times you said ‘Romanian’ with ‘blacks,’ and see how that sounds…”
The crucial thing for all the cases, of course, is that the replacement instances are of roughly the same type.Â That’s why it’s an argument by analogy — if the two things aren’t analogous, then the exercise is pointless.
George Will’s new column at NRO is a defense of the Trump plan to gut and/or eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts.Â Will does make a few sensible points along the way — especially that the NEA is a regressive wealth distributor (most of the folks who get the support are already with money).Â And, of course he leads with the old kulturkampf line about the government shouldn’t be using taxpayer money to fund things like the Piss Christ, Mapelthorpe’s photos, and other objectionable messes.Â These, of course, are more arguments against how the NEA has been run, and less arguments against the NEA.Â He closes, after conceding that art, for the most part, is a good thing, with the following:
Distilled to its essence, the argument for the NEA is: Art is a Good Thing, therefore a government subsidy for it is a Good Deed. To appreciate the non sequitur, substitute â€œmacaroni and cheeseâ€ for â€œart.â€
Holy moly!Â OK.Â I’ll limit myself to three things.
#1:Â The argument overyields.Â Now replace “art” with “national defense” or “law enforcement.”Â Once the line is put that way, NO government program is defensible.Â (Don’t tell small government Republicans!)
#2: We do have government subsidies for macaroni and cheese.Â It’s calledÂ the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.Â So many boxes of mac’n’cheese have been purchased with government help.Â (Moreover, don’t forget the government support for the farming and manufacturing sectors that produced it!)
#3:Â I smell some straw on that opponent.Â With ‘GOOD DEED’, Will has conflated a good thing to do with a thing that is good for the populace, or is in the interest of the state.Â Contributing to the common good, even if it is indirectly, is what this is about.Â Calling it a ‘good deed’ is a mis- description of what the supporters of the NEH see the agency out to do.Â This is not a distillation of essence, but rather a snifter of nonsense.
2 thoughts on “Reductio mad libitum”
The “distilled to its essence” claim is also, like “I see what you’re saying,” a tell for a distortion by simplification (as you mention).
But in classic Will fashion, the key move is the equivocation on “good.” The “good” in “good deed” is a different one from the “good” in “good thing.”
Hey John, Right! It’s the thing one says when reaching for a fistfull of straw to stuff in a shirt.
Comments are closed.