Reporter: “Mr. President, any comment on Judge Gorsuch’s comments about you, sir?”
The President: “You misrepresented his comments.”
Reporter: “I just wanted to ask you what your thoughts were, sir.”
The President: “His comments were misrepresented. And what you should do is ask Senator Blumenthal about his Vietnam record that didn’t exist after years of saying it did. So ask Senator Blumenthal about his Vietnam record. He misrepresented that just like he misrepresented Judge Gorsuch.”
(The White House, 2017)
In this situation, Trump was asked what he thought about Judge Gorsuch’s comments. He first stated that the comments had been misrepresented, but when the reporter asked again for his thoughts, he did not directly address what Gorsuch had said. Instead, he brought up Senator Blumenthal’s credibility and his past statements about his military record. That had little to do with the original question about Judge Gorsuch’s comments.
The reason I consider this an ad hominem fallacy is because the response shifts attention away from the actual argument and toward the credibility and character of another person. Rather than explaining why Blumenthal’s description of Gorsuch’s comments was incorrect, Trump attacked Blumenthal’s credibility by bringing up an unrelated controversy. Even if Blumenthal had previously misrepresented something, that does not automatically prove that his description of Gorsuch’s comments was also false. The claim still has to be evaluated based on the evidence surrounding Gorsuch’s actual comments. This plays to peoples emotions and ethics because it makes you question something not on topic. He could have answered the question instead.
Understanding ad hominem arguments can help you recognize when someone is attacking the person involved instead of addressing the actual claim. Someone can be dishonest, annoying, or completely wrong about something else and still make a correct argument. If the response focuses more on who said something than whether the statement itself is true, it is worth looking more closely at the reasoning being used.
Disclaimer: This post may or may not reflect my personal beliefs or political views. Its purpose is to illustrate a logical fallacy for a school assignment, not to make a political statement. This is simply the example I chose to analyze.