The State of the Union and Anecdotal Evidence

One of the better tactics employed by the Left in recent years involves its use of anecdotes.  Why rely on facts—which can sometimes be inconvenient and are almost always boring—when you can tell a story?  In this way, speeches become carefully orchestrated narratives.  President Obama would introduce his subject, who would then stand up, and begin the narration.  The presence of said subject in the chamber provides an aura of tangibility.  While seemingly anyone can manipulate facts, the subject of the story is right in front of us.  This approach stirs emotions far more than boring facts.

It doesn’t take statistical or philosophical expertise to realize the deception inherent in such a style.  When the sample size is one, you can craft any type of narrative you want.  Anecdotes are (almost) never reliable sources of evidence.  They can serve to accentuate or illustrate a point, but by no means can they carry the burden of proof.

Yet these types of speeches generate widespread support.  The balance has tipped in favor of emotion over reason.  Now, by no means am I saying that the American people are all dumb or uninformed (although many certainly are the latter).  But let’s face it. Which tactic seems more compelling: explaining the intricacies of a 1000+ page bill or telling a story about one person who benefited from it?  Therein lies the genius (if it can be called that…).

So how can this trend be combated?  No handy solution comes to mind.  As the American people leave the anecdotal world and enter the real one, they will witness a very different picture.  Already the American people have voiced their discontent, and they will continue to do so.  Rhetorical devices can carry you pretty far in politics, but in the end reality will take the day.