Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

[Totally Committed]

Last night, I watched an episode from my all-time favorite tv series, "West Wing", in re-run. The name of the program was "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc". That's Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." That got me thinking.

(When my meds kick in and the blood actually gets to my brain, I can be sort of a nerd, so bear with me.) This Party of ours has a bad case of "Post-hoc-itis", and after next week's election, it will be up to us to decide which way the Democratic Party goes. And, remembering that Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc is a logical fallacy will go a long way to helping us make that choice.

Wikipedia has this to say about it:

Post hoc, also known as "multicollinearity" or "coincidental correlation" or "false cause," is a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality — retrocausation, if it actually occurs at all, is something we do not appear to experience. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based only on the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. That is to say, it is not always true that the first event caused the second event.
Post hoc is similar to affirming the consequent. It can be expressed as follows:
When A occurs, B occurs.

Therefore, A causes B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Take the following statement -- If Harold Ford wins in TN, with his conservative stances on many issues, all candidates with similar conservative stances on such issues will win everywhere in the South. Because this Party needs to re-connect with the Red States of the South, the Democratic Party needs to triangulate even further to the Right if we want to win elections. (Note: This is not an anti-Ford thread. He is only an example of the kind of Democratic candidate I was looking for. I would have used Lieberman as the example, except he is no longer a Democrat. This is about conservative Democrats, or as the media wants to call them --another fallacy for another time: Centrists.)

As I see it: In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports this. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least four other possibilities:

1. B may be the cause of A, or

2. some unknown third factor is actually the cause of the relationship between A and B, or

3. the "relationship" is so complex it can be labelled coincidental (i.e., two events occurring at the same time that have no simple relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time).

4. B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A is correlated with B. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically "strong".

See what I'm saying? Assuming Ford's win (should he win) in TN means this Party needs to go even further to the Right in order to win elections. You know that's what the DLC will say.... but, I digress.

As I researched this subject early this morning, I found the following at Instapundit:

October 30, 2006

A "JESUS-LOVING GUN-SUPPORTING" SENATOR" from Tennessee! I was talking to one of my colleagues about Harold Ford's run to the right, and he said he'd vote for Ford in spite of his disapproval of Ford's opposition to gay marriage, support for posting the ten commandments, hard stance on immigration, etc. Anything's worth it, he decided, to get a Democratic Congress. Ford's strategy is obviously to hope that a lot of left-leaning Democrats feel that way, while pulling in people who would otherwise vote Republican. It could work.

But what do the Dems do if they win?

posted at 01:39 PM by Glenn Reynolds

http://instapundit.com/archives/033630.php

(Article mentioned in blog: "What Tennesseans will get will be a Jesus-loving..." can be found at: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-tennesseans-will-get-will-be.html )

Then, I found another blog:

Monday, October 30, 2006

If Democrats win the House with candidates who seem more like Republicans... what will happen to the party?

Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views....

Collectively, the group could tilt the balance of power within the party, which has been struggling to define itself in recent elections. The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues; some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, some are the reverse. They could influence negotiations with Republicans on a variety of issues, including Social Security and stem cell research....

The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called third way of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism.

Yet since Mr. Clinton left office, Democrats have seemed to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd like to see the Democratic Party become centrist. If they win because they found moderates to run in key districts, I think they'll have a special obligation to please people like me. I'm going to hold them to the bargain.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/10/if-democrats-win-house-with-candidates.html

As you can see, it's already starting! That's a prime example of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, if I ever saw one. Leaps of logic are already being made... 2 + 2 is already being said to = 5. What a conundrum! I dread this country unless the Democrats take all their races, but I dread my Party if Democrats like this win just because of Red-State Bush-fatigue.

So, here's what I propose: Let's try and get as many Democrats into office as possible next Tuesday. Then, PLEASE let's have a meaningful dialogue about where our Party is going from here minus all the false assumptions and leaps of logic that will be inherent in those wins. This needs to happen. We need to be able to TALK ABOUT THIS rationally. Why? Because a Party that moves further to the Right will lose me and people like me, and we're going to ALL need to be present for the 2008 elections.

Thanks for taking this trip back to High School Latin class with me. And, Let's have a landslide of victories next Tuesday!

TC

[hobbit709]

1. Many people couldn't pass Logic 101

much less any course requiring real critical thinking

[Nozebro]

2. Precious few can "think" period. Never mind the "critical" part. EOM

nt

[Totally Committed]

5. So, you're both saying this is a lost cause?

I hope we can pull off talking this out logically when this is all over. It's our only hope.

2 + 2 will NEVER = 5, no matter WHO does the math. And, this Party needs every real Democrat it can get.

TC

[IMAMiscreant]

3. Here's the challenge-

We need to be able to TALK ABOUT THIS rationally.

Rational Politics has become an oxymoron in this age of limited attention spans (except for those sensational celebrities) and salacious soud bites.

A massive injection of rationality is the only prescription that will help start the recovery that is needed.

[Greyhound]

8. If rationality were a part of the current political climate, we wouldn't

be in the position we are in. We keep trying to inject logic and reason into the debate apparently failing, or perhaps refusing, to understand that any conversation requires, first and foremost, a willingness to converse. This does not exist on the right and is pretty thin on the ground over here too.

Hopefully this will change after the election, but I for one, am not holding my breath. They are stupid and convinced, in spite of all the evidence, that they are right.

[Totally Committed]

9. Great post!

I couldn't agree more.

Maybe after the election, is right!

TC

[KKKarl is an idiot]

4. ..

Living in the Bible belt I get annoyed at the way republican candidates use the word liberal like it is the ultimate sin when describing their opponents. Last night I saw a commercial by a democrat who claimed she was a conservative. It makes me sick that we cannot say we are liberals, do you want a congress that wants to ban flag burning, gay marriages & abortions or do you want a congress who is going to reduce the deficit, end the stupid war, crack down on terrorism at home & better the economy. It is time to stand up for what we believe in.

[Igel]

6. Everybody pretty much knows the predictions are predictions.

The logic isn't valid, but the conclusion may still be true. We'll see. But much of the speculation is entertaining (if you adopt a sufficiently ironic stance).

I suspect that few politicians in late January '07 will read what the pundits have said and say, "Gee ... I guess they've discussed this in the NYT and WaPo and Salon, and they've decided everything for us, so we'll have to blindly follow them. After all, we have no wills of our own."

I can't imagine Pelosi saying that, and can't take seriously an argument that seems to make the assumption that she--or other dems--would.

[Totally Committed]

7. So, you think Ford is an example of a true turn toward

conservatism by our Party? You don't think Democrats make cynical decisions about a million times a day to keep them more "viable", and keep that corporate $$$ pouring in?

Is that what you're saying? I think a lot of electeds will gladly move to the Right if all these conservatives win, and this Party will be all the worse for it.

But, it needs to wait until after the election, and then, as I said, we need to talk...

TC

[TygrBright]

10. Nice post! And I agree with your basic premise...

...if I am interpreting it correctly. We should not assume that because Democratic candidates who label themselves "conservative" or take "conservative" positions win, that the electorate is rewarding the Democratic Party for being more "conservative," therefore in order to continue to win, we must abandon that which is "liberal" and become that which is "conservative.

A logical fallacy, indeed.

However. (You knew there was going to be a 'however,' didn't you? Since I didn't put a period and a "n/t" after the post Subject, it would have been a safe deduction, although not necessarily a logical certainty.)

I think we can also safely infer that since the Corporate Oligarchs have spend the last thirty-plus years discrediting all things "liberal," broadcasting potent anti-liberal propaganda, and appropriating or subverting all that of which the American electorate more-or-less overwhelmingly approves under the "conservative" label, we still have to be careful about how we present an agenda of change. A very significantly large segment of the electorate who do NOT represent the hardcore nutjob wing of the GOPpies has been effectively conditioned to regard themselves as "conservative" and All Good Things as "conservative" and All Evil as "liberal." We have something of a deprogramming challenge ahead of us, and if we ignore that, we do so at our peril.

In the mean time, we should prioritize the change/cleanup agenda. Naturally, restoring the Constitution must take precedent. After that, items on which there is broad agreement regardless of ideological label must come first, no matter how urgently we might wish to implement items which have been clearly stigmatized as part of the soi-disant "liberal agenda" demonized by the Oligarchy's buttboys in the media. Concurrently, we need to enable the deprogramming agenda by reinstituting the Fairness doctrine and other protections for a genuinely free press. Only then can we effectively transcend the artificial ideological controversy perpetuated by the Oligarchs for the benefit of their asset values and net worth.

None of this requires us to abandon the principles of justice, equity, and support for the social contract that make up the core of liberal beliefs. Merely, we need to be both strategic, and as inclusive as possible, in how we implement them, even if that requires a more deliberate and calculated process than many of us hunger for.

judiciously,
Bright

[Totally Committed]

11. This part is outstanding:

In the mean time, we should prioritize the change/cleanup agenda. Naturally, restoring the Constitution must take precedent. After that, items on which there is broad agreement regardless of ideological label must come first, no matter how urgently we might wish to implement items which have been clearly stigmatized as part of the soi-disant "liberal agenda" demonized by the Oligarchy's buttboys in the media. Concurrently, we need to enable the deprogramming agenda by reinstituting the Fairness doctrine and other protections for a genuinely free press. Only then can we effectively transcend the artificial ideological controversy perpetuated by the Oligarchs for the benefit of their asset values and net worth.

None of this requires us to abandon the principles of justice, equity, and support for the social contract that make up the core of liberal beliefs. Merely, we need to be both strategic, and as inclusive as possible, in how we implement them, even if that requires a more deliberate and calculated process than many of us hunger for.

Thanks for posting that!

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I don't have a problem with conservative democrats in the caucus

If we had 60 Democrats in the Senate and 10 of them are as conservative as Harold Ford, that's still better than 51 Dems and 49 Republicans. The more seats we have, the more ability we have to control the agenda and the less control people like Frist have over it.

That being said, people like Harold Ford need to recognize that the majority of the democratic party supports gay rights and is against organized school prayer. Ben Nelson I think has more or less done a good job of this by staying out of the media spotlight on issues where he disagrees with the party. Joe Lieberman is an example, however, of how one person has attempted to undermine the entire party.

The Democratic party has represented the ideological center-left since Franklin Roosevelt and if we don't continue to represent that constituency, we really don't have much of a reason for existance. If people who are in the center or slightly to the right of the center want to join us because the GOP is so far right these days, they are perfectly welcome to do so. But they need to recognize that the party's legacy is movements like the New Deal, workers' rights, civil rights, environmental protection, etc. all of which are center-left movements.

[Quantess]

13. Thank you for posting this.

You are both ambitious and optimistic for attempting to make people "get it". Don't give up.:-)

[Totally Committed]

14. Kicking this myself, because we need something else to talk about besides Kerry

or Lou Dobbs.

Get back on-message, DU! Elections in one week!

TC

[BootinUp]

15. I probably shouldn't

participate in either of these thread choices. ;)

[benEzra]

16. One other fallacy crops up here...

and that is the idea that taking an Enlightenment view of individual liberties with regard to the gun issue is somehow a "conservative" position; it's not. The ban-more-guns position that the party adopted in the early '90s, that hurt the party so badly in many swing states, was primarily a DLC position designed to make the party look "tougher on crime," not a progressive position.

A lot of thinking Dems have been ditching the DLC's let's-get-tough-on-gun-owners position since '04, and it has nothing to do with "moving to the right," but with the realization that adopting the harsh DLC position on the issue was a mistake, IMHO.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

A lot of working-class people are swinging back toward the Dems this election cycle, and it looks like the party is going to do well in both the House and the Senate. But if the ban-more-guns agenda crops up again (and don't think for a minute that Feinstein et al aren't going to bring it up), then that could last about 2 years before 1994 happens all over again. THAT is one thing that the party should be trying to avoid when thinking about where to go from here.