Nixon's Plain-Folks Fallacy
by Thea Dean

Richard Milhous Nixon was honest and innocent.  At least, he claimed in his "Checkers Speech" given in 1952, during his term in the Senate.  In this speech, he was protesting having done anything wrong concerning $18,000 that had been donated by some of his supporters.  By diverting the audience's attention he masterfully maneuvers the focus away from the issue at hand, to other topics with no bearing upon the subject in question.  His use of appealing to our patriotic emotions, and associating himself with service members by using his military background, bolsters his reputed common man posture, but does this prove his innocence?

While explaining how a Senator's office is financed and operates, he gives an example of a business matter he might conduct.  "Business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some information about his GI policy" (230).  Nixon appeals to our patriotic emotions with an irrelevant argument, a logical fallacy designed to make us believe, he goes out of his way for a veteran, so he must be a good man.  "Irrelevant Argument reaches a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises" (86), as defined by Lynn Q. Troyka and Douglas Hesse.  Although this would be helpful to his constituent, being patriotic, or helping a member of the Armed Forces, is not proof, or a guarantee , funds were not misappropriated.

He further glorifies his association with service members, while giving his biography, by listing his service record.  "My service record was not a particularly unusual one.  I went to the South Pacific.  I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle starts.  I Got a couple of letters of commendation but I was just there when the bombs were falling" (232).  Is a blatant attempt to capitalize on the audiences emotions and sense of patriotism to achieve feelings of equality and kinship.  Donna Woolfolk Cross explains Glory by Association as, "the propagandist tries to transfer the positive feelings of something we love and respect to the group or idea he wants us to accept'" (42).  We can respect and appreciate the man's military service, but we must not just accept what he says without further questions and analysis.  Military service alone does not testify to the true character of the man.

Though he uses many logical fallacies in this speech there is one artifice he utilizes repeatedly, Nixon skillfully employs the Plain-Folks appeal technique to help gain the listeners confidence as well as feelings of commonality.  Cross defines this logic fallacy as "the device by which a speaker tries to win our confidence and support by appearing to be a person like ourselves -- 'just one of the plain folks'" (41).  This is a successful ploy, Nixon goes straight for the heartstrings when he describes where he came from.  He states, "Our family was one of modest circumstances and most of my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier.  It was a grocery store - one of those family enterprises, the only reason we were able to make it go was because my mother and dad had five boys and we all worked in the store (232).  Coming from modest circumstances and working in the family store does not ensure honesty.  Nor does this prove he did not misuse these donations.

However, as he progresses through his biography he explains how he worked his way through college and worked some while in law school.  In 1940 he married Patricia Ryan, and like most young couples starting out things were not easy, he and his wife both had to work.  Then from 1942 to 1946 as he served in the service his wife Pat continued working while he was away.  Upon his return he entered politics.  At this point, as he lists the amount of their savings, his salary, additional monies from estates from his law firm, speaking engagements, and inheritances, he takes the opportunity to align himself with the Plain Folks again.  He says, "We live rather modestly.  For four years we lived in an apartment in Park Fairfax, in Alexandria, Va.  The rent was $80 a month.  And we saved for the time that we could buy a house" (233).  Nixon's logic is, "see I am no different from you, I am just an ordinary, struggling, working man like you."  The fallacy in this is, no matter what your income is, or how much savings you have, you can still be a liar and thief.

After describing his life insurance, and the lack of, for his wife and daughters, he lists their assets and debts.  As he is projecting this sense of honest and forthrightness he is exposing himself for our inspection, how can he not be trustworthy?  Even though he is a Senator vying for the opportunity to run on the ticket for the Vice-Presidency, he states, "that Pat doesn't have a mink coat.  But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat" (233), no pretension here just plain old common folks like you.  What type of coat you have does not nor cannot determine the type of person you are, or the things you do.  As well as fur or cloth, which political party you are affiliated with has no bearing on the actions you take.

Nixon deftly guides his audiences attention where he wants it to go, and that is away from the charges made against him.  "We are just plain folks, not rich, I do not drive a fancy car, my wife does not wear fur, we are just like you, struggling along the best we can."  This is a dangerous precept that can lull the listener into a false trust that can be used to take advantage of him or her.  We must guard against this logic fallacy.  When someone is persistently trying to convince you, of how, they are just like you, question their motives.  Do not take what they say at face value.  Questioning, analyzing, and reasoning are three steps you can take to help you identify and reject propaganda.  Otherwise, you maybe led, to believe untruths, into temptation, or perhaps, even into outright evil.

Works Cited

Cross, Donna Woolfolk. “Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled.”  The Power of Language: The Language of Power. 2nd ed. Ed. Jessica Isaacs XE "Jessica Isaacs" , Jeff Cox, Christian Morgan, Kelli McBride XE "Kelli McBride" , and Rachel Jackson.  Boston: Pearson, 2006.  39-48.

Nixon, Richard M.  “Senator Nixon's Checkers Speech.” The Power of Language: The Language of Power. 2nd ed. Ed. Jessica Isaacs XE "Jessica Isaacs" , Jeff Cox, Christian Morgan, Kelli McBride XE "Kelli McBride" , and Rachel Jackson.  Boston: Pearson, 2006.  229-36.

Troyka, Lynn Quitman, and Douglas Hesse.  QA Compact.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2007.  85-88.

Back to Prose Index