American politics drowning in logical fallacies

The bulk of what passes for political "debate" these days is based on "feelings and suspicions," as far as I can tell. I see a large proportion of the Republican Party falling for a classic logical fallacy, called the "Post hoc," short for the Latin phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc"  which means "after this, therefore because of this".  

The most frustrating and partisan arguments are about "the sanctity of the vote" and the need to protect the nation from voting fraud. 

My simple example: Trump lost the presidential election. Therefore, fraud must have been involved, since that result is not what millions of voters wanted.

The actual cause is that Biden received more votes, and no investigations have revealed widespread fraud. But it COULD happen, the argument goes, and who can oppose "the sanctity of the vote"?

Another way to think of this argument is that Republican leaders have invented a problem that demands a solution. This is termed making a "strawman argument," which is based on a false premise. The fact that such a large percentage of Republican voters are all in on the need to protect our voting from fraud could be termed the "bandwagon effect," which basically boils down to "just because a large number of people think something is true doesn't make it true."

Whew! That's a lot of logical fallacies, and maybe the brazenness and lack of logic in the arguments is what gives them so much power. 

I honestly did not want this post to become a partisan screed. If someone refuses to acknowledge clear evidence, then creating meticulous arguments about logic is doomed to fail. 

Here's what I mean, using a classic syllogism many learn in high school:

• Socrates is a man. 
• All men are mortal.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Simple, right? But if someone disputes the very first line of the syllogism and refuses to accept that Socrates is a man, that pretty much wipes out the possibility of logical discussion.

For writers, developing clear cause and effect relationships is essential in creating compelling arguments.

If only we could be certain about old Socrates.