When logic fails

By Herman M. Lagon

There’s something about how certain political statements manage to land far from the original point—illogical, jarring, and, frankly, baffling. They often do not seem to follow from anything previously said or done, yet they are thrown out with such conviction that listeners are momentarily stunned, nodding along, trying to make sense of it. Welcome to the world of the non sequitur—a leap in logic that somehow leaves the premise far behind. In Philippine politics, this technique is not just accidental but strategic.

In its simplest form, non sequitur describes a statement that deviates logically from the preceding argument or context. It is used in political discourse as a blatant deviance from reason to divert attention, change the subject, or perplex opponents. In our country, the use of this fallacy has evolved from occasional blunder to habitual recourse in dodging hard questions. Take, for instance, a recent congressional budget hearing where the issue was low utilization of funds, yet the official responded by rattling off next year’s projected budget—no explanation, no connection—just a leap from the now to the then. The non sequitur was so blatant that it felt like a calculated deflection, leaving those present with the unenviable task of piecing together a broken train of thought.

This sort of verbal gymnastics is not new. Politicians everywhere have employed such techniques to evade scrutiny. But in the Philippine context, where issues of corruption, inefficiency, and governance run deep, the use of non sequiturs is not just irritating—it is damaging. It capitalizes on the masses’ short-term memory and emotional reactivity, often leaving them chasing after a new, unrelated point rather than holding leaders accountable for the original question.

Let us step back and consider a non-political example. Imagine you are discussing climate change. You ask your friend what they think about the increasing carbon emissions in urban areas, and they respond with, “Well, you know, my cat is terrified of thunder.” While this is unlikely to happen in everyday conversations, politicians always get away with this disconnect. For instance, when asked about addressing human rights violations, one might hear, “Our country has a great history of hospitality!” Both are true in their own right, but they have no business in the same discussion.

This absurd logic fuels political speeches and conversations, distracting voters from focusing on real issues. Non sequiturs offer a means of shifting the narrative, where inconvenient truths and hard questions are sidelined and replaced with irrelevant statements designed to appease or divert. In this sense, politicians are not just making a logical error but engaging in intellectual evasion.

This tactic is reminiscent of some forms of spirituality, not in the sense of its logic but in its ability to make one reflect deeper. It calls attention to what was avoided, much like how introspection forces us to see what we did not want to acknowledge. However, unlike the reflective nature of such practices, the non sequitur in politics is designed to obscure, not enlighten.

Perhaps the most notorious example of the non sequitur fallacy is how specific candidates address corruption allegations. A senator accused of misusing government funds might respond, “I’ve always been a family man, and my constituents know that.” The statement’s truthfulness is irrelevant; the leap is jarring. Being a good father has no bearing on the handling of public funds, and yet, the emotional resonance of family values is supposed to cleanse the political stain.

Academic literature backs up the damaging effects of such fallacious reasoning. A study from Harvard University (2022) found that repeated exposure to non sequiturs in political discourse decreases the public’s ability to discern logic from emotion, eroding critical thinking. The constant bombardment of illogical statements shifts the public’s focus from policy substance to personality, a trend all too familiar in our charisma-driven politics. As Filipinos continue to navigate an arena where rhetoric often outweighs reason, the non sequitur fallacy becomes more than just a minor annoyance—it becomes a tool of manipulation.

A survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) 2023 showed that 67% of Filipino voters prioritize character and “personal values” over experience and policies when choosing leaders. This preference creates fertile ground for non sequiturs, as politicians latch onto emotional appeals rather than engaging in a reasoned debate. As a result, discussions about national issues are often sidetracked by irrelevant personal anecdotes, leaving voters more emotionally engaged but less informed about critical policy decisions.

It is not all bleak. There is still space for reason and accountability. International examples show that societies where critical thinking is cultivated fare better in holding leaders to account. Finland, for instance, integrates logical reasoning and fallacy detection into its national curriculum, resulting in a less susceptible population to rhetorical tricks. We could benefit from a similar approach—where education strongly emphasizes critical reasoning, enabling the next generation of voters to spot and reject non sequiturs in political discourse.

The presence of non sequiturs in our politics reflects a deeper issue—one that goes beyond fallacies and rhetoric. It speaks to a political culture that prioritizes personality over policy and sentiment over substance. The challenge is for Filipinos to not only recognize the fallacy when it appears but also hold their leaders accountable for using such cheap tricks to avoid real discussions.

We must stay alert in a world where politics often precedes logic. Non sequiturs may not seem harmful, and sometimes they can even be funny. But they are signs of a bigger problem. As voters, we must ensure that our leaders give us answers that make sense and are transparent. We should not accept emotional sidetracks or meaningless platitudes. As teachers and citizens, it is our job to raise a generation that will not be swayed by personality but will think carefully about what is being said.

A strong nation is built not on empty words but on meaningful, honest conversations. The next time a politician tries to convince you that their family values justify their incompetence, remember that you deserve much better. It is time to leave the illogical jumps behind and walk toward reason.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.