Ad hominem, means against the man---to mount an argument against some aspect of the person rather than what he or she said or wrote. It is considered a logical fallacy, rude and pointless to a logical or political argument.
It doesn't take much thought to see most of the rightwing's political arguments are ad hominem, particularly when liberals are the target. They have managed to conjure up the idea that Liberal is a personal attribute, some character flaw tantamount to a morally debased state of the human being, something akin to child molesters, more or less along the lines of Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick affair, or more recently Bill Clinton's impeachment for the high crime and misdemeanor of getting a blow job from Monica and then lying about it.
After endowing liberals with a morally debased character, the Right then draws conclusions and consequences from this debasement. The conclusions and consequences are then attached to whatever pronouncements, advocacies, or policies that the liberal in question has made. The pretense of an open and shut case against the consequences of such liberal policies is determined to follow as a matter of logic from the ad hominem argument against the liberal.
That is pretty much the beginning, middle and end of the US Right's political discourse. It is a very good example of what comes from the idea that a determination of value can overcome any statement of fact or reason. The value or valuelessness of an intention or sensibility is more important than the statement, the outcome, or the facts given.
In a related but different thread, Chuck0 wrote: ``I'm not advocating dismissing the culture wars, but I think that it is important to not overestimate the power of the religious right...''
I think Chuck0 is missing a lot here. The depth of importance of the religious right stems from its divinely inspired idealism which exactly places the relgious Right's concept of value over any fact or reason. This shift of public discourse to questions of values over facts or reasons was well honed in the kulturmach.
But it seems to me the culture wars have changed their course with 9/11 and Iraq. In the current incarnation there has been a significant shift toward reactionary nationalism---not just as rhetoric, but as government policy. This nationalism is remarkably close to a divinely inspired idealism which the Right seems to spew forth from their never to be exhausted well of hate.
The lexicon is that the Right and their Christian followers are the true Americans and everybody who opposes them are anti-American, enemies of freedom, and traitors. This has been part of a subtext of the culture wars for a long time, but now it has been moved into the fore by al Bushid and the Repugnants for their own political advantage under various banners like American Values. It has been effective enough so that the Demicraps find themselves cornered into claiming they share such values but disagree with the Repugnant implementation. This spineless acquiescence has reduced political opposition to minor tactical fights over the details. Woe be to those who might be labeled with the word liberal which in this context is synonymous with anti-American, atheistic, sexual pervert (all positive character attributes in my lexicon, but never mind.)
The basic formula is belief in God is a prerequisite for being an American. So then the power of the religious Right derives from this formulary of identifying themselves with the flag. Where ever the flag goes the religious Right is there claiming to be its most ardent suitor. And in the converse, where ever the Right goes, it takes the flag with it. The little flag pins that supposedly memorialize the WTC attack have been morphed into an emblem of belief in America, as if the pins were some holy symbol of proper citizenship. The deafening silence of any opposition to this outrage adds to the pretense sufficiently to become de facto power. (The Moyers PBS show NOW was canceled for suggesting something along these lines---see his speech of May 16, 2005 which I posted but has yet to clear the LBO 15k censorship-bot.)
I think the Right's cartoon political tactics have been quite effective. I can not look at a US flag without seeing some red faced, rightwing jerk spewing pure hate in a southern accent. To me, all the US government is populated by George Wallace clones. In my mind that is America, incarnate: snarling, vicious, stupid, and cruel. Wallace without his latter day redemption.
The Rightwing's completely seamless identification with nationalism and the flag links up to the War on Terror, since the core of nationalism is not love of country (the motive the Right imputes on themselves) but fear and hatred of the Other. The policies of the war on terror have tried to creat and foment a state of domestic terror which is every bit as cartoon-like as the Right's nationalism. However silly, it is has been effective at silencing any political opposition to its ludicrous and absurd pretexts. After all, who could be against public safety and national security if not a terrorist and enemy of the state?
The reason I think few establishment moderates and liberals see these turns in the cultural wars as a serious political threat is because they don't believe these ideological absurdities---even if they feel the weight of the attacks. The problem is that too many voters do believe them---thanks to the apparently unbounded propaganda machine (much of it publicly funded) of the Right.
And of course the liberals were and are sloppy and don't realize that part of politics is education, grounding issues with history and analysis, and most of all explaining why the facts and reasoning of policies and events are supposed to be the central focus of the process and consequent policies. They seem to transform into boneless chicken breasts the minute the Right questions their moral character.
Meanwhile the hapless liberals may or may not hold religious views, but they definitely don't link those views up with their political assessment of the US or the Right. They may be mildly patriotic but they don't think their concern for the country has any relation to the strident nationalism of the Right which borders on nazis-lite racism. They may be mildly apprehensive about terrorism, but they don't consider others who don't share this apprehension as enemies.
However, in each case I think the Right has been successful in making these links into themes in their main discourse and thereby intimidating enough moderates and liberals into silence. The liberals are left stymied. They sort of agree with some parts of the linkages but don't seem to be able to mount any argument against the consequences---which the Right draws for them in the intervening silence. In the meanwhile, the Right has managed to turn that confused silence into the illusion of support. The illusion is convincing enough to persuade the cynical and careless media that indeed the Right represents America. The media just follow suit under the general business rational whatever sells news product---or doesn't get calls to the advertisers.
Taken all together then, the Right has succeeded in a classic ad hominem assault on liberals. First the assault proceeds on the motives of liberals which are presumed to be not just moral debasement, but class snobbery based on an anti-democratic sensibility, distain for the common man, and a cowardly nature that attempts to hide these motives from public view. These motives go to the charge of elitism and depend on a general public suspicion of altruism and high sounding rhetoric which is considered to typify the over educated pointy headed liberal. Never mind the Right is far more guilty of such motivations and absolutely depends on public alienation from the political process for its very survival.
The general ad hominem rhetorical contrivance is quite effective since it immediately puts the liberal opponent on the defensive. Any attempt to defend motives will fail miserably since in principle it is impossible to present evidence either way. Presenting character evidence for self-defense just seems like lying and egotism. So then, the absence of evidence to the contrary condemns the accused, ex falso. Therefore, the thrust of an attack on motivation or intention only counts for the offensive and can't be used as a defense. (Notice this is a complete inversion of the Right's tactic in a political offensive---our motives and intentions are devoted to the public good---the liberal's motives and intentions are bad, against god and nature, and so forth...)
The second part of ad hominem is even more effective. Starting with the imputation of base motives for liberals, the assault proceeds to draw out conclusions and consequences that follow from such motives. Since liberals can't defend their motives, they only make fools of themselves attempting to argue with the conclusions and consequences that follow from these putative motives.
The real trick to using ad hominem in a political arena is to always be first, always be on the offensive, since defending against ad hominem only adds to the pile of shit that sticks. Like tic tac toe, the first player wins if they understand the game.
(The above description of ad hominem is based on a section in Paradox and Paraconsistency by John Woods, a book Ian suggested. The book references John Locke, Of Reason. )