There’s an argument Donald Trump brought to center stage in the 2016 election: The less his opponent’s popularity, the less we should take them seriously. In a primary debate, a Telemundo journalist asked a question on immigration, and Trump dismissed her by claiming drops in her company’s ratings. I was taken back by the response. It seemed a cruel way for a politician to answer, and reporters would feel the same wrath in the days ahead. In time, the argument seemed to become mainstream, at least in conservative circles. Others would imitate the fallacy, helping to bring discourse to new lows in peace and productivity.
There’s a part of me that wonders if the popularity argument has merit. If the public leaves a media company in droves, doesn’t it reveal a heavy bias that people should run away from? If a pundit fails to gain viewers after years of work, doesn’t it speak to their work? There’s a reason we’re drawn to the caption of New York Times Bestseller, and I’d be lying if I said I never dismissed a news clip or article with this in mind. It’s an argument that many take seriously, and it’s an easy way to dismiss someone who challenges your views.
Despite its appeal, we need to recognize that the popularity argument is a fallacy. It avoids addressing the subject at hand, distracting us with suspicions of bias and bad motives from the speaker. Whatever the reasons for the alleged drop in Telemundo ratings, the topic was the potential harm to immigrants by a future Trump administration, and this became lost in the minds of viewers. In debate classes, we learn that high popularity does not make an opinion correct. By extension, claiming an argument is bad because of low support commits the same logical crime. The fallacy deters us from tackling a question, and in a mean-spirited way.
Just like an Ad Hominem attack, the popularity argument can be a cruel course to take as we look down on others with contempt. Matt Walsh, a conservative commentator for The Daily Wire, is someone who uses the fallacy with enthusiasm. To be sure, Walsh will address the subject at hand, and his debate skills shouldn’t be underestimated. But he’ll poke at his opponents with insults, and among them claims that no one watches them. Therefore, we shouldn’t listen to them. If they don’t have a high enough audience (whatever this is supposed to be), then there must be something wrong with what they’re saying. It’s a tool that helps Walsh, Trump, or any like them to see themselves as winning the argument, owning the libs, and walking away with self-satisfying grins.
An absurd example of Walsh doing this is from a segment he did on transgenderism. On The Matt Walsh Show, he addressed the arguments that the pundit John Oliver had made on the need for transition medical care. Walsh threw his first punch by claiming Oliver’s show – Last Week Tonight with John Oliver – isn’t popular. He called it a “little-watched” show that followed The Daily Show – an even less popular one, according to him. In reality though, Matt Walsh has 2.85 million Youtube viewers, vs. 9.37 million for John Oliver. As someone who watched both shows, I knew of the imbalance, and so it was unbelievable that Walsh would attack Oliver in this way. Does he not know how much more popular Oliver is, I thought. Did he bother to look it up? It seemed that Walsh was either lying to an audience that would never look up John Oliver, or he was too careless or arrogant to bother looking it up.
Setting aside the falseness of his attack on Oliver, let’s follow the logic of Matt Walsh. With his greater popularity, shouldn’t I take John Oliver more seriously than Matt Walsh? After all, the side with less viewers can’t know what they’re talking about, right? With this, it won’t matter what the evidence is on the benefits and harms of gender-affirming care. The proof is in the number of viewers, or so we’re being told. The argument is an easy way to dismiss and dodge an argument. It is its own kind of Ad Hominem attack, as the merit of the one who raises the question becomes the question. It’s a fallacy that societies should call out, both in our minds and in public discourse.
There’s also a funny irony to me when seeing Matt Walsh make fun of others for a lack of viewership. I followed a blog that Walsh wrote before he became famous for The Daily Wire and the documentary What Is a Woman.* In other words, I knew Matt Walsh’s work when he was a nobody. Does this mean he didn’t have anything enlightening to say? Should I have not read his blog? He tells us in so many words to ignore people with few readers, but this means he himself wasn’t worth my time or attention. And even today, John Oliver and others are ahead of him in popularity. So no matter what good sense or strong points Walsh might ever made on current events, who cares. Just look at metrics like the number social media views, and we’re told that’s what matters.
All of this demonstrates the futility and absurdity of the popularity argument. Any pundit is a newcomer at some point, and everyone has to start from somewhere. This shouldn’t take away from the content they have to share with the world. And as for media outlets dropping in ratings, even if true, it shouldn’t matter for the argument, and to bring it up is to avoid the discussion. Yes, we should have some skepticism for a source well-known for bias, and this should inspire us to look further for truth on a subject. But those like Donald Trump take this healthy idea to a dark place for their own purposes. If the Trump administration had intended harsh restrictions and punishments on immigrants, then no one should care about the ratings of Telemundo. We should address the question head on, and we should recognize what the former president was doing.
If we can’t move beyond the attacks on a person’s popularity, then we should recognize the irrelevance. I can imagine hateful websites having millions of views while start-up writers make sound points on a subject. Should fame make the difference in who to believe? Donald Trump is mean-hearted in a variety of ways, and many have been inspired to follow his tactics. It’s sad to watch as contempt swells within us, and the pursuit of truth is taken off the rails. Recognizing the fallacy for what it is would be a step forward, both in our personal lives and in public discourse.
*I was disappointed when Walsh moved on to national media. He always seemed to be a better writer than public speaker, though he improved at the latter with time.