For Pizzo to argue that he is the worst of the lot is a valid argument. There was nothing sloppy about the arguments he presented.
OK, let me try again. I agree that it's not unreasonable to suspect that Bush is the worst of the lot and so argue. You can argue anything you like and there is certainly plenty out there to lead you in that direction if you are so inclined. Pizzo comes up with some appropriate evidence to support his argument and I think that Pizzo and reasonable reader might conclude from that evidence that Bush may well be well on the wrong side of the median when it comes to presidents.
But he doesn't come up with the evidence or rationale to support the argument that Bush is the WORST, which is what is asserted. To demonstrate that Bush is the worst you have to do more than just list his shortcomings. You have to analyze his performance in the context of that of other presidents using some criteria. To claim that he's a poor president is one thing. To escalate that claim to call him the worst without comparative evidence is either exaggeration or sloppy thinking. On what basis is Bush worse than, say, Buchanan, often claimed to be the worst? There is none offered.
Let me give you a different example. Say you claimed your kid was the smartest kid in the world. People would smile at your charming hyperbole and interpret your statement to mean that the kid is pretty smart and you're a proud mom. No harm, no foul. But if, upon further discussion, you claimed that no, that wasn't hyperbole and that he really was THE smartest kid in the world, you'd be met with, at best, stunned silence because you have no basis for making that claim. You'd be thought either hopelessly biased, dumb as a stick, or around the bend. Sloppy thinking is a kind label to put on that.
Smartest kid, worst president, same difference. Exaggerating for effect can be a useful rhetorical tool. Believing the exaggeration to be truth is, well, something else. Hyperbole is commonly used in populist political rhetoric. When everyone winks, that's fine. When the hyperbole snuffs out the wink factor, we not only have a different definition of hyperbole, we have a problem. |
