The Specter of the Danes (Or, A Brief Examination of an Incomplete Argument)
While everyone is panicking about the US midterm elections (and rightfully so), we may allow ourselves the grace to take a breath, step back for a moment, and use the surrounding rhetoric as an object lesson in argumentation.
Today, let us rid ourselves of all earthly attachments and look at the responses to this wack tweet Elon Musk made:
My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will:
Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate.
Open the borders and legalize everyone living in America illegally to cement a permanent majority.
Increase the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.
This would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state and the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
All that is needed to ensure this doesn’t happen is 51 Republican senators in 2029. That is why you should vote for Republican senators this election. Other reasons are irrelevant compared to this one.
We won't be looking at this tweet directly, though it is ripe for dissection (namely, because the matter of Washington, DC and Puerto Rico becoming states should by all accounts be a matter of fair representation within one's government, so the ultimate effects on the electorate is irrelevant to the merits of their statehood, and because no mainstream Democratic candidate has come anywhere close to proposing open borders). Instead, we will be looking at some responses further down in a chain. But first we need a little more context.
the world’s richest man just listed his biggest fears for america, and somehow housing, groceries, wages, and health care didn’t make the list. tells you everything
Then:
Actually it does. You won’t have housing, you’ll have government owned and run housing. You won’t have groceries, you’ll have government owned and run food lines. You won’t have wages, you’ll have credits and vouchers determined by government. You won’t have healthcare, well, we’ve already seen the disaster of what having the government dictate healthcare has done. It will become 10x worse.
Your lack of awareness tells me everything….
bro, denmark has universal health care, affordable housing programs, private supermarkets, and people earning actual paychecks. whoever sold you that fear owns you already
The responses to this last tweet are what I will be examining. Perhaps it will not be difficult to spot a pattern from these selections:
Denmark is a fraction of the size of this country and doesn’t have the number of entitled demanding lazy citizens and illegals that we do Source
Anyone who compares the U.S. to Denmark cannot be taken seriously 🤣 Source
we aren’t fucking denmark you idiot. go live in fuckin denmark if you want denmark.Source
Denmark has 1/40th of the US population, a completely different economic composition and demographic backgrounds. To use Denmark as a comparison to the US is absurd Source
Denmark has about an 8th of our population. And inviting the world in so that the middle class had to pay? It will break us. Source
Bro, Denmark is a country of 6 million mostly homogenous Danes. America has 5 times as many illegal immigrants compared to the entire population of Denmark. Source
Bro, Denmark has the population of Wisconsin! By comparison, the should add in 1 million illegals as well as have 1.5 million who feel like they don’t have to work and make everyone pay for it. Let’s see how all that free stuff works and for how long! Source
Denmark has a population of almost 6millon they run on a different economic scale to the US which has 340 millon+. Denmark also has the most stringent immigration policies in the EU. This shows a strong correlation in being able to have such a system…Source
also the US is way bigger then denmark so its a much larger scale lmao Source
What’s the population of Denmark? Source
@grok please explain why comparing the US to Denmark or any other small country is a false equivalency and foolish oversimplification Source
Denmark has maybe 1% of the population America has Source
Well shit. There are only 68 people living in Denmark. Of course they can afford it. Source
Denmark has like 5 million people that shit won’t work here. Their tax rate is retarded even at the lowest levels. You’ll get a revolution trying to do shit like that Source
Denmark is almost nowhere as big as America nor does it have as many people lmfao Source
Lmao Denmark is the size of half a US city you’re comparing Apples to Oranges Source
Buddy, the population of Denmark is just over 6 million people. That's the same population as the state of Maryland. People seem to forget how big the United states is. Source
More people live in NYC than Denmark, dumbass Source
Finally, perhaps my favorite for its audacity:
Denmark is tiny, you pedophile Source
These tweets all make the same argument: Denmark is smaller, both in terms of landmass and population. Therefore, its social welfare systems cannot be duplicated in the United States.
The issue is that this argument is incomplete. There is no statement offered which connects this fact about its size with this assertion about the efficacy of its governance. We don't even need to take the perspective that its welfare system would work in order for this to be a problem; we can happily take it for granted that the United States absolutely could not ever replicate it and still be left with an argument full of holes. Merely pointing out that a difference between the two countries exists is insufficient to bridge the gap. It still must be explained: Why does the fact that Denmark is smaller mean its welfare system cannot be replicated?
However, to their (dubious) credit, there are other users who make explicit what this missing connection supposedly is. As far as these tweets go, there are two primary arguments. First, and most distastefully, the United States has nonwhite people who don't contribute anything:
Denmark is 90% white. You can have that government when most of your population are actual [contributing] members of society. We have somalians over here. Source
Second, Denmark's welfare is subsidized by American defense spending:
Denmark like most other EU countries can have these social welfare programs because their entire defense is subsidized by the US. We leave NATO or stop contributing so much then they would have to cut those programs. Source
Again, we don't even have to take a stance on the merits of these arguments to see that they are complete in ways which the earlier ones were not. The missing piece between "Denmark is small" and "therefore, America can't match its welfare system" is filled. Notably, an argument being complete does not mean it is meritorious, sensible, ethically sound, or, least of all, correct; it just means that its logical sequence is unbroken. "Danish welfare cannot work in America because we have too many brown people who wouldn't contribute enough tax dollars to fund it" is an argument that is open for challenge: Does the data suggest such a disparity between white and nonwhite people actually exists? If so, is it explicable by other means which would render moot the objection against Danish welfare? The argument is complete not because it is necessarily correct, but because the logical sequence can be examined and challenged on its merits. Likewise with the defense spending argument: Is it true that American defense spending is higher per capita than Denmark? If so, is there evidence that there is not enough money left over to fund the welfare anyway? If not, is it worth it to cut defense spending to achieve it?
It should be emphasized that recognizing an argument as logically complete does not imply believing that its conclusion is logical. All it means is that it's not a non sequitur. "America can't match Danish welfare because Denmark is smaller" cannot possibly be argued, because it lacks any substance to argue against; it is hollow, empty, and devoid of anything to latch onto. It is akin to a campaign ad arguing that you should vote for me because my opponent is a stupid poo-poo dummie head. Meanwhile, "America can't match Danish welfare because America has too many noncontributing immigrants and spends too much on defense" can be challenged; you can grab it, observe it, and point out where its logic fails. It is a far better argument whether or not it is correct.
When making a point, online or offline, it is important to remember that it is incumbent upon you to provide all of the evidence and logical pieces to your argument. It is not valid to omit a crucial bit of connecting tissue even if you deem it too obvious to bother mentioning. If your audience is charitable, they may do you the courtesy of supplementing your thoughts and steelmanning for your benefit. That courtesy, however, is not a right, nor should it be expected. Your arguments, principles, and perspectives about the world are like the house your mind inhabits, and from which you make your most important decisions. You owe it to yourself to make sure the house is on a firm foundation. And in a democracy, you owe it to your fellow citizens to make sure your convictions are sound. The first step of constructing a sound argument is making sure that you're making an argument at all.
As for that big list of commenters above, we may question whether the incompleteness of their solitary, uniform argument, bleated out in unison the moment a comparison to Denmark was made, is a bug or a feature of their style of political rhetoric.
Regardless, I just noticed a squirrel outside; therefore, it is time to make toast.