Welcome to the circus of political discourse, where logical fallacies aren’t just tossed around; they’re juggled with the finesse of seasoned acrobats. Here, Laura Gayle Coates didn’t merely dip into the toolbox of rhetoric; she was intent on using the entire set, as if completing a fallacy bingo card could win her the argument. In today’s post, we’re not just pointing fingers; we’re laughing at the absurdity of watching her attempt to argue her way out of a paper bag with nothing but logical missteps. So, buckle up as we dive into the spectacle of political punditry, where the art of persuasion sometimes looks more like a comedy of errors.
Laura Gayle Coates is a noted American legal analyst, lawyer, and television host. She previously worked as a trial lawyer at law firms Faegre & Benson and Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, and also held a position as a federal prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.
From her own website, LauraCoates.com…
Since 2017, she has hosted the daily eponymous talk show, “The Laura Coates Show,” on SiriusXM, now airing weekdays 7-9 AM ET on the P.O.T.U.S. channel. On her interactive show, Laura “edutains” an engaged audience with a lively discussion on the intersections of politics, law, and pop culture in a way that highlights her intelligence, humor, charisma, and … antics.
mrcNewsBusters: CNN’s Coates Attributes Harris’s Struggles To ‘A Society’ That ‘Has Elevated White Men’
CNN’s Laura Coates joined radio host Buck Sexton on Friday’s edition of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO to try to figure out why Vice President Kamala Harris and her campaign are struggling. Sexton naturally suggested it was because people associate her with the failures of the Biden Administration, but Coates claimed it was because she is a “woman of color” in a society that “has elevated white men.”
Coates: “I think what weighs Kamala Harris down are two things that are obvious and distinguishes her from a Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or even a Barack Obama. This is a woman of color in a society that has, as your — just talked about, has elevated white men historically, consistently, presently, and they believe in the future as well.”
Coates added, “I think those two things really can have an impact on how the electorate sees her and the viability of a woman in office, a woman at the helm, talking about global politics, people will say, ‘What would another country feel about a woman leader because there’s never been one’ and so those two things don’t give her wings, they give her anchors, it’s her job to elevate it.”
Grok enters the chat and explains this statement’s logical fallacies and outright errors.
Laura Coates’ commentary on Vice President Kamala Harris’s struggles
contains several logical fallacies and misrepresentations:
False Dichotomy: Coates suggests that Kamala Harris’s challenges are primarily due to her being a woman of color, implicitly setting up a binary where race and gender alone determine political success. This oversimplifies the complex dynamics of political campaigns, which include policy positions, communication skills, public perception, political strategy, and personal charisma.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause): She implies that because Harris is a woman of color, her struggles must be due to societal biases against women of color in leadership roles. This fallacy assumes correlation implies causation without considering other contributing factors.
Hasty Generalization: Coates generalizes that society, both historically and presently, exclusively elevates white men, which overlooks numerous counterexamples and the increasing diversity in leadership roles across various fields. This ignores the progress made and the diverse leaders who have succeeded in various capacities.
Ignoring Counter-Evidence: The mention of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama as comparisons ignores that Biden, for instance, faced his own set of criticisms and challenges not strictly tied to his race or gender. Similarly, Clinton’s loss in 2016 was influenced by a multitude of factors beyond her gender.
Straw Man: By framing the argument around what “another country” might think about a woman leader, Coates constructs a weak version of potential criticism that might not reflect actual global perceptions. This distracts from real, substantial critiques or challenges Harris could be facing.
Ad Hominem: While not directly an attack, focusing on Harris’s identity rather than her political actions, decisions, or public statements veers into an ad hominem territory by suggesting her challenges are because of who she is rather than what she does.
Misrepresentation of Public Sentiment: Claiming that the electorate sees her viability through the narrow lens of gender and race might not accurately represent the full spectrum of voter concerns. Many voters consider policy, leadership style, and political effectiveness over racial or gender stereotypes.
Overgeneralization of Global Perception: The notion that global politics might view a female leader with skepticism due to a lack of precedent is an overgeneralization. Many countries have had female leaders, and the global political landscape has shown varying reactions to leadership based on more than just gender.
Ignoring Kamala Harris’s Agency: Coates positions Harris as a passive recipient of societal biases rather than an active participant in her political narrative. This overlooks the political strategies, communications, and decisions made by Harris and her team that could impact her public image and effectiveness.
The discussion around Kamala Harris’s political standing should consider a broader array of factors including her political record, communication strategies, policy impacts, and the general political climate rather than attributing her challenges narrowly to her race and gender. This nuanced approach would avoid the logical fallacies present in Coates’ analysis.