The Article below was published in Vol. 136, Issue 1 of the Lake Forest College Stentor on September 18, 2020.
Nathaniel Bodnar ’21
Staff Writer
Motte and Bailey arguments seem to be everywhere in our current discourse. But first, what are these arguments? Motte and Bailey arguments comprise an argument that a person makes that takes an outlandish position (Bailey) and, once pushed on their position, the person retreats to a much more reasonable position (Motte). The person using this argument style usually claims that their argument was always the Motte position. This argument style is used across the political spectrum and pollutes political discourse.
The most recent example on the political left is the “defund the police” argument. In recent memory, when the political right has used the term “defund,” they have meant to defund something in totality. When someone on the right said they wanted to “defund Planned Parenthood,” they seriously meant that they wanted to cut off all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Carly Fiorina, a 2016 Republican Presidential candidate, said during her campaign that “[a]s president of the United States, there will not be a dime of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.” So, when people on the left started to use “defund the police,” it was reasonable to assume that they meant “defund” in the same way that conservatives did. Many did seriously mean to defund the police entirely, but the phrasing stuck to a much more modest version of the argument. Brookings Scholar Dr. Rashawn Ray said, “‘Defund the police’ means ‘reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality.’” The position that Dr. Ray describes is reasonable, but he is hiding from the Bailey position of the argument and is denying its existence. Despite this, this reasonable position uses the same phrase as the much less reasonable one.
President Trump’s initial claims that he was going to have Mexico pay for the wall at the southern border operates comparably. On June 16, 2015, Trump said, “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” Many assumed this statement indicated that Trump believed that Mexico would directly pay for the wall. He later backtracked and said that “During the campaign, I would say Mexico is going to pay for it, obviously I never said this [Mexico would directly pay]. I never meant they’re going to write out a check.” Trump’s new position was that Mexico would pay for the wall through a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The renegotiation of NAFTA would reduce the US trade deficit, and that money would be put toward the wall. Trump and his defenders have frequently used the Motte and Bailey tactic since his election.
A Motte and Bailey argument is one in which someone makes an outlandish claim, and then the person will walk their position back to a more reasonable one and then claim that they always held a reasonable position. Both sides use this intellectually dishonest method and for a good reason. It allows them to carry populist rhetoric to national stages. Simple phrases are more likely to catch on, “Make America Great Again” and “Defund the police” used frequently instead of complex and nuanced positions. Unfortunately, the populace is inspired by catchy phrasing and not the complex ideas of Austrian economics or Modern Monetary Theory. Unfortunately, these Motte and Bailey arguments will continue to be used by elites because they work.
