Spotting Dodgy Political Speak: Logic, Reasoning, and Critical Thinking in the Queensland Election

With the Queensland election fast approaching, political campaigns are in full swing, and candidates are making their pitches to win your vote. Political messages are crafted to persuade, influence, and sometimes mislead in this high-pressure environment. This is where critical thinking, logic, and reasoning become essential tools for voters. By applying these skills, you can cut through the noise, spot dodgy ‘political speak,’ and make informed decisions based on solid evidence rather than emotional appeals or empty rhetoric.

What is Dodgy ‘Political Speak’?

Dodgy political speak refers to using vague, misleading, or manipulative language designed to appeal to voters without providing clear, substantive information. Politicians may use these tactics to obscure the truth, avoid accountability, or sway public opinion by appealing to emotions rather than presenting facts. Recognising these tactics is the first step in engaging with the election process critically and rationally.

Fundamental Logical Fallacies to Watch For

During election campaigns, logical fallacies—flaws in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument—are often used to mislead voters. Here are some common fallacies to be aware of and how to identify them:

Straw Man Fallacy

A fallacy occurs when a politician misrepresents or exaggerates an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. This tactic distorts the original argument, diverting attention from the actual issues.

Example:
If a politician claims that their opponent wants to “abolish all forms of law enforcement” when, in reality, the opponent is advocating for police reform, they are creating a straw man. The actual argument—reforming specific practices—gets lost in the exaggerated claim.

How to Spot It: Look for extreme statements or claims that seem overly simplified versions of an opponent’s position. It could be a straw man if it feels like the issue has been exaggerated or distorted.

False Dichotomy (Either/Or Fallacy)

This fallacy presents an issue as having only two possible outcomes or choices, ignoring other viable alternatives. It forces voters into a simplistic “us vs. them” mindset when, in reality, many complex issues have a range of solutions.

Example:
“Either you support this infrastructure project, or you don’t care about jobs.” This statement presents only two extreme positions when, in fact, there may be room for nuanced debate about the project’s environmental impact, cost, or long-term benefits.

How to Spot It: Be cautious of any argument that reduces a complex issue to two extreme options. Real-world solutions are rarely black and white.

Appeal to Emotion (Fear, Pity, Pride)

Emotional appeals are powerful tools in political campaigns but often bypass logical reasoning. Politicians may invoke fear, pity, or pride to manipulate voters’ emotions, steering the discussion away from facts and reasoned debate.

Example:
“If my opponent is elected, it will lead to economic collapse.” Statements like these often lack evidence but are designed to evoke fear. They exploit emotions to avoid engaging with actual data or concrete plans.

How to Spot It: When a political message seems designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction—whether fear, anger or even excessive pride—without presenting clear evidence, it’s likely an emotional appeal. Ask yourself, “Where’s the data?”

Red Herring

A red herring is a distraction tactic where a politician diverts attention from the main issue by focusing on something irrelevant. This shifts the conversation, drawing voters away from the heart of the debate.

Example:
When asked about healthcare policy, a politician may highlight their economic achievements, ignoring the original question. This misdirection prevents the voter from getting a clear answer on the issue.

How to Spot It: Stay focused on the original question or topic. If the response feels off-topic or irrelevant, it may be a red herring to sidestep the issue.

Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)

Instead of addressing the argument or policy, an ad hominem fallacy attacks the person making the argument. This tactic is often used to discredit opponents without engaging with their ideas.

Example:
“My opponent can’t be trusted because of their personal life decisions.” In this case, the politician avoids discussing policy by attacking their opponent’s character. The personal attack diverts attention from the real issues at stake.

How to Spot It: Be wary of attacks on characters unrelated to the discussed political issues. If a politician’s argument focuses more on personal jabs than policy, it’s likely an ad hominem attack.

Beware of Vague Claims Without Evidence

A common trick in political speak is making broad, sweeping statements without backing them up with specific information. Phrases like “We have a plan” or “We will fix this issue” sound reassuring, but these claims are empty without concrete details. Politicians often make promises to avoid scrutiny while appealing to voters’ desires for action and solutions.

Example:
A candidate might say, “We have a plan to fix the housing crisis,” but it’s worth questioning if they provide no details about how they intend to do so. What exactly is the plan? How will it be implemented? Where’s the evidence that it will work?

How to Spot It: Always look for specifics. Be wary if a politician makes a claim but doesn’t follow up with clear details or actionable steps. Vague statements often mask a lack of substance or understanding of the issue. Press for clarity: what is the plan, and how will it be carried out?

How to Apply Critical Thinking in the Election

Now that you know common fallacies and manipulative tactics, how do you apply critical thinking to the election process?

Look for Evidence

When politicians make claims about their achievements or their opponents’ shortcomings, look for evidence: data, research, or specific examples back a credible argument. If a claim sounds dubious or too good to be true, investigate it further. Look for independent sources to verify the information.

Check the Facts

Fact-checking is a powerful tool during election campaigns. Many organisations in Australia provide fact-checking services, reviewing politicians’ statements to determine whether they’re true, false, or misleading. Before accepting a claim at face value, take the time to research it.

Question Vague Language

Pay attention to any statement that seems ambiguous or lacks detail. Vague language often covers a lack of real action or understanding. Politicians should be able to provide concrete answers and explain their policies in detail. If they can’t, it’s a red flag.

Evaluate the Source

Not all sources of information are equally reliable. Some media outlets or commentators may have political biases that affect their reporting. Consider where the information comes from and whether it’s a reputable, objective source. Stick to well-established, trusted sources for news and political analysis.

Look for Nuance

Real issues are complex and often require thoughtful, multifaceted solutions. If a politician’s proposal seems overly simplistic, it’s worth questioning. Does the policy address the complexities of the issue? Are there alternative perspectives that are being ignored? Politicians who recognise nuance and address the full scope of an issue are more likely to have thought-out, practical solutions.

Be Aware of Confirmation Bias

It’s easy to seek information that aligns with your pre-existing beliefs and ignore data that challenges them. This is called confirmation bias, which can skew your perception of political issues. Actively seek out diverse perspectives, even if they differ from your own, and critically evaluate all information rather than accepting it at face value.

Vote with Logic, Not Emotion

Politicians will use all kinds of tactics as the Queensland election approaches to win your vote. Using critical thinking, logic, and reasoning, you can see through dodgy political speak and focus on what really matters—policies, facts, and the real-world implications of those policies. Ask for evidence, check your sources, and stay alert to fallacies that try to manipulate your thinking. The more you critically evaluate the messages you hear, the better equipped you’ll be to make a well-informed decision at the ballot box.

Remember, your vote is decisive. Use it wisely by cutting through the rhetoric and voting based on facts and reasoned judgment.