You could ask, if Fed Ex and UPS merged, would we call it Fed UP? That's kind of the same sort of question we must ask ourselves about the apparent merger of con men's and politician's thinking, arguments, lingo, and general practice.
What are these fallacious arguments? Here's a listing which you must master in order to earn your spurs as a skilled Con Man / Politician.
> Ad hominem attacks: "My opponent, Senator Foghorn, could know nothing about space travel as he brags in his book, because his great, great grandfather traveled west in a covered wagon." When in doubt leapfrog the issue.
> Argument by needling: Another form of ad hominem attack is to make your opponent angry. Simple insults will usually do it, but can easily be reinforced by interrupting, clowning around to show disrespect, being noisy, failing to pass the microphone if in a debate. Generally, making a horse's ass of yourself is one of the easiest argument forms to employ. To justify such obnoxious behavior, merely ask yourself, If you wear your heart on your sleeve, where do you display your other bodily parts?
> Attack a caricatured version of your opponent's position. "Senator Foghorn says we should not fund the Lower Slobovian Army:; can you understand why he wants to leave us all defenseless like this?" When in doubt, create a huge chasm of stupefying disbelief.
> Argument by conflict: Scientific debate on global warming is so split that it must mean that everybody is wrong, and perhaps we should worry about global cooling instead. When in doubt, totally distort.
> Appeal to fear, with mass-application. A sexual utterance in the work place must be stopped because, if not, all men will become foul-mouthed in the work place. When in doubt, muddle and magnify the issue to cover hordes of people and imply a mass dash into a new sin.
> Bifurcation: Assumption of only 2 alternatives when, in fact, there are more. "It's war or peace in Lower Slobovia." How about a truce, a UN Peacekeeping Force, an armistice (like the DMZ in Korea for the past 55 years)?
> Burden of Proof Argument. Claim that what has not been proven true must be false, and vice versa. How about absence of evidence? Is this evidence of absence? The Burden of Proof Argument carries delightful possibilities to create every sort of confusion imaginable.
> Argument by question. The questioner has a big advantage in a debate. It usually takes less time to ask a question than to answer it. And, questions can be phrased to make the answerer look like a fool with his response. "Senator Foghorn, why are you against increasing the minimum wage for starving teenagers?" How can Senator Foghorn win, no matter what answer he comes up with?
> Argument from age. Products labeled New! Improved! These appeal to the belief that innovation is of value for such products, whatever the circumstances. How about a doubling of the capital gains tax? Is this really New? Improved?
> Argument by slogan. Of special value when you can get your audience to chant your slogan. (The kickoff can be from pre-planted shills in your audience who can also stimulate laughter, applause--the live equivalent of a TV laugh track--as well as begin the chant of a slogan). "Change, change, change." "Fight for Lower Slobovia." "Clean up Washington." "Throw the rascals out." "No more blow-outs for Senator Foghorn." On and on. On and on. On and on. Ad nauseous.
Now, with you back to being the recipient of these "Sunday punches," remember:
These people are so gifted that they can throw your belief system into a state of prolonged levitation--just long enough to con you out of your money, or get themselves elected.
This--the political Silly Season--is therefore the Season to be extra aware of your presence of mind, have an extra-firm grip on your wallet, and a deaf ear to all strictly emotional appeals.
You will be nothing but healthier, wealthier, and wiser for it.
