The “Joe the Plumber” hubbub has added a new dimension to the current presidential race; one that should have been there all along — it’s actually focusing attention on… (dramatic pause)… the issues!
The interesting thing about the response from the Obama campaign (which of course includes the media) was that it resorted immediately to ad hominem attacks. This tactic has unfortunately become a standard debate tactic, especially in politics. It isn’t exclusive to the liberal side of the spectrum - Sean Hannity for example has a particularly grating tendency to engage in this type of argument - but it does seem to be more prevalent coming from the left side of the fence.
The problem is that ad hominem arguments are logically invalid because they completely bypass the argument at hand. In this sense, they are essentially a red herring. My favorite illustration of this is from an essay by C.S. Lewis entitled “Bulverism”. Lewis named this after a certain (fictional) individual named Nathaniel Bulver (I’m going from memory, so Lewis’ protagonist may have had a different first name). It seems that Bulver’s life was ulitmately shaped one day when, as a child, he overheard his parents arguing. His father was explaining to his mother that one could determine the length of the long side of a right triangle by adding the square of the other sides then taking the square root (the Pythagorean Theorem for all you geometry buffs). Bulver’s mother responded to his father’s contention by saying: “Oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a man!”
Applying this concept to the Joe the Plumber issue, Obama supporters in discussing the issue have focused on the following facts: (1) Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber - he actually does work as a plumber, he just doesn’t have a valid license; (2) Joe the Plumber’s first name is actually Samuel, not Joe - Joe/Joseph is actually his middle name; (3) Joe the Plumber owes back taxes; and finally, (4) Joe will probably not be making more than $250,000/year with the plumbing business that he said he wished to purchase. The first three arguments are egregiously irrelevant; they have nothing whatsoever to do with the argument on the merits of the Obama tax plan. This would seem to almost go without saying, but it seems to have escaped the notice of many in the media.
The fourth argument regarding Joe’s potential income, however, appears relevant, at least at first. If Joe’s business will not be making $250,000 per year (which is apparently arguable), then he of course would not pay more taxes under Obama’s plan, since that income level is the cut-off for Obama’s proposed tax increases. But this is still a logically invalid point to the discussion, because the point brought up by the Joe the Plumber debate is that raising taxes on individuals making over $250,000 will cause taxes to go up on many small businesses (income earned by a proprietorship counts as personal income for federal tax purposes). If taxes are raised on small businesses, the amount of money that they can use to pay employees is diminished, therefore resulting in either deferred hiring or job cuts. This point could just as easily be made by a fifth grader as it could by Joe (the apparent fact that Joe was himself a possible businessman who would be affected only adds an element of ethos); therefore, replying to the question by pointing out Joe’s future income is essentially a non-response.