(I'm sorry supporters) Hillary Clinton's Appeal to Emotion

I will be discussing a quote from Hillary Clinton in the 2nd Democratic Debate this past year. It was immediately what my mind went to when I heard of the “appeal to emotion” fallacy.

To sum it up, Bernie Sanders pointed out that Wall Street has, over her political career, been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton. He was saying that, though she says she will “take on Wall Street,” she is receiving incredible amounts of money from these big banks, and she wouldn’t actually follow through with her promise.

If the big banks actually though she would hurt their finances, they would try to buy someone else, but the fact that they still support her speaks volumes. She felt that he was impugning her integrity, but instead of firing back with a logical argument or some counter point, she said this:

You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I am very proud that for the first time the majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. I represented New York and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked, where we were attacked. We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. (Clinton)

You can also view the video of this moment here:




Hillary Clinton’s response in this debate was centered on the emotional reaction Americans have with the September 11^th terrorist attacks, rather than mentioning any legislation or action she has supported.

According to the website from our class describing different types of logical fallacies, the “appeal to emotion” fallacy is, “You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.”

Hillary Clinton, rather than regaining our trust that these campaign contributions don’t dictate her loyalties, instead chose to talk about how she was a senator in New York during these attacks, thus drawing on the audience’s feelings towards 9/11.

This is manipulating an emotional response from the American people, because it immediately makes the audience want to be on her side… but it’s not a valid response to Bernie Sander’s accusation that Wall Street has bought her loyalty.

This fallacy just goes to show you that sometimes people, politicians especially, can gain our support by appealing to our emotions, rather than using logic.  This is especially important during the upcoming presidential election.

Voters should look through the feelings that the candidates drum up, and see what the candidates are really saying, or not saying. Moreover, voters should also consider the actions, or inactions, of the politicians on the issue.

 People should not allow themselves to be swayed by off-topic, self-serving references towards tragedies or victories from our past. While sometimes it is appropriate to bring events like this up in debates or speeches, this example was not one of them.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate to engage in such logical fallacies. Donald Trump is also prone to using emotion to get supporters to disregard things like morals and laws.

As humans, it may be hard, but people must see through these veils to what candidates are really saying.

So, as you watch the debates to follow, watch out for similar fallacies from all candidates. They may just be trying to manipulate you into supporting them. Support a candidate for what they can do for this country, not how they make you feel.