The Clinton Invocation Fallacy

I think that we need a corollary to Godwin’s Law for invoking Clinton. Here’s some examples why:


1.
ME (commenting on a blog): Sam Alito never had a real job in his life.

IDIOT: What about Clinton? He worked for government all his life, too. Does that mean he was unfit for office?

2.

ME (in the cafeteria at the office): I think it’s wrong to kill civilians in Iraq.

MY CONSPECIFIC: Clinton bombed Serbia.


What has Clinton got to do with anything? Did I bring up Clinton? No. Did I invite comparisons with Clinton? Certainly not. It would make just about as much sense to mention that “James K. Polk invaded Mexico on a flimsy basis” as to invoke Bill Clinton. If I criticize the government, it does not mean that I endorse some other administration. The “Clinton was worse” or “Clinton did the same thing” arguments are stupid. My rule (St George’s Law, if you will): If you bring up Clinton when the discussion is not remotely about him, you are deemed to be a moron and to have lost the argument. I suppose the same could be said for bringing up any past President’s foibles in like manner. “Thomas Jefferson slept with his slaves. That’s a lot like outing a CIA operative.”

I’m not saying that it is never appropriate to invoke Clinton. Perhaps your point is that Clinton established a precedent, and you are disputing my characterization of something as “unprecedented”. Or you are putting something in temporal context, e.g. “During the Clinton administration, such and such happened, and this bears on the discussion at hand.” Or, I have invited comparison. “Bush is the worst Presidential golfer ever.” “Au contraire, Clinton sucked at golf more.”

It is particularly annoying to me to have to confront the Clinton Invocation Fallacy. Why would you assume that because I hate Bush that I loved Clinton? There is no rational basis for such an assumption. Granted, Bush sucks so much that Clinton is starting to look like George Washington in comparison, but that’s because every past President looks better next to Bush. Ronald Reagan seems like a genius, and Bush the Elder seems like a great orator. And Nixon seems so much more forthright now.