False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
Characteristics
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
The following statements are examples of false equivalence:
- "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
- "We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
On March 26, 2010, I posted Shame on The Columbus Dispatch in response to another Jeff Stahler editorial cartoon. In it I said that Stahler, no longer employed by The Dispatch but who draws a comic panel entitled Moderately Confused in addition to editorial cartoons, "is quite a bit more than moderately confused."
Today, I am upping the ante and suggesting that Mr. Stahler may not be confused at all but instead deliberately using false equivalence to advance a partisan political agenda.
To paraphrase and purloin a favorite ploy of those on the political right let me say this: I'm no politician, but I can tell when a cartoonist is distorting reality for political purposes.
Stahler's cartoon suggests that there is no difference between America's major political parties, yet that is demonstrably false. The statement taken at face value is valid, but the equivalence breaks down when one examines what my people means to each political mascot in the cartoon.
For Republicans, my people consists of a predominantly white, economically affluent, male-dominated population. For Democrats, my people consists of a more diverse group with a much greater resemblance to the demographics of the general population.
Not surprisingly, the legislative agendas of the Republican and Democratic parties are quite different.
Republicans tend to legislate exclusively, delineating in detail for whom the benefits and privileges offered by their policies are intended and for whom they will be denied.
Democrats, in contrast, legislate inclusively, championing issues and promoting legislation designed to address issues and redress inequalities which affect a much wider segment of the population.
Earlier this week in a town hall meeting hosted by Jose Diaz Balart, President Obama, recognizing false equivalence at work, offered the following response to the suggestion "that both parties were 'playing political ping pong' with the issue (of immigration reform)."
Democrats have consistently stood on the side of comprehensive immigration reform, Democrats have provided strong majorities across the board for comprehensive immigration reform, and you do a disservice when you suggest that nobody was focused on this, because then you don’t know who’s fighting for you and who’s fighting against you.
Immigration reform is just one of the issues many on the right do not want to see brought under the umbrella of the equal protection clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. They find it much more politically advantageous to address such issues in word than in deed.
Learning to recognize false equivalence is one more way individuals can avoid being herded like cattle into voting against their own best interests.
