Introduction: Representative Matt Gaetz posted this to twitter on June 9th, 2022.
Key Facts: June 9th was the first day of televised hearings over the events of January 6th.
As a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz was himself involved in efforts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from the Trump administration to that of Biden which is very much part of the story of January 6th.
Text: “But January 6! ‘BREAKING: According to GasBuddy, the national average has reached $5 per gallon.'”
ANALYSIS
Comments: This argument turns on context. One has to know what the issues are and how the author of the argument relates to them in order to assess which issues might be used as a distraction for others.
Statements: It’s a simple argument with an unstated conclusion.
[1] But [the other side wants us to focus on] January 6!
[2] ‘BREAKING: According to GasBuddy, the national average has reached $5 per gallon.”
[3] [January 6th is a diversion from more important issues.]
Diagram: 1+2 -> 3.
Discussion: This argument raises the following issues; Missing Assertions, False Alternatives, Red Herring, Suppressed Evidence.
Missing Assertions: Insofar as the conclusion of the argument (statement 3) is unstated, this argument raises the issue of missing assertions.
False Alternatives: One way of looking at this argument (and many others like it) would be to think of it as a complicated instance of false alternatives, one in which extra possibilities are ruled out in practice if not in theory. Insofar as it presents one issue as a distraction from others, this argument might be said to assume that our attention will fall on one option or the other, but not on both. Of course there are more subtle ways of addressing questions about the media cycle and the public attention span, but there is at least some concern that arguments like this force people to choose between looking at one issue and looking at another when folks might have legitimate reason to want to address both in their own right.
Red Herring: This argument suggests that the January 6th hearings are a distraction (even a deliberate diversion) from the issue of high gas prices, whereas the argument itself may well be using the high value of gas prices to draw attention away from the televised January 6th hearings which began the very day that Gaetz posted his tweet. In effect, the argument answers any questions about the January 6th hearings by telling us to focus on inflationary gas prices instead.
Note: There is of course an implied dig at President Biden in this argument insofar as many on the right blame him for those high gas prices. Whether or not this is fair is an interesting question, but Gaetz is well aware that many who see his tweet will think of inflationary prices as Biden’s fault, thus priming them for the suggestion that the January 6th hearings may not only be a distraction from a more important issue, but actually a calculated effort to draw attention from President Biden’s failings.
Suppressed Evidence: In this argument, Gaetz raises the issue of high gas prices, but offers no comparable account of the substance at issue in the January 6th hearings. He thus loads the significance of one issue in comparison to another about which he offers no substantive account. Neither does Gaetz explain his own role in the political events likely to be covered in the hearings, nor does he account for for the timing of his own tweet. All of these, and more (e.g. the economics of global oil markets) would be essential to any serious consideration of the weight of these issues.
Evaluation: The argument is unsound insofar as it is a red herring.
Final Thoughts: This is just a very ironic argument for Gaetz to make. It is a diversion tactic disguised as a complaint about a diversion tactic.
Hinterlogics 