OPINION: Sophistry

By Brent Regan

Sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments with the intent to deceive. Critics will use sophistry to make an argument when the facts do not support their position. We see this all too often in the political realm where false arguments are epidemic. An example would be “Trump drinks water, and you know who else drank water…Hitler; therefore Trump is Hitler.” You may laugh at that example as absurd but is it more absurd than the Democrats claiming they are “saving our democracy” when they did everything they could to deny Trump a spot on the ballot and depriving citizens the opportunity to vote, meanwhile anointing Harris as their nominee without a single vote cast.

Experts at sophistry will make an argument that usually contains some elements of truth and sounds convincing at first. But after just a little rational scrutiny the mendacity is revealed. A classic example is the advertised reduced risk of a heart attack when you take statins for high cholesterol. The marketing says that taking a particular statin will reduce your heart attack risk by 36%. Seems like a lot, right? What they don’t tell you is that 36% is the RELATIVE risk reduction. The ACTUAL effect is 1.1% because if you don’t take the drug you have a 3.1% chance of having a heart attack while taking the drug, with all its side effects, reduces your risk to 2%. These numbers come from just one study paid for by the company that makes the drug. Sophistry can be worth billions.

In other cases a purposeful misapplication of the facts is used to build a house of cards argument. An example was a recent attempt to apply the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Freedom Index metrics to the Big Beautiful Bill that was just signed into law.

The Freedom Index is built on 14 metrics that are used to evaluate proposed legislation. The metrics ask if the bill increases taxes, increases regulation, creates more government, etc. and simply scores them as positive, neutral (or not applicable) or negative. The Freedom Index was designed to evaluate Idaho legislation because in Idaho bills are limited to a single subject. Each bill is reviewed and judged by a panel of experts who determine the score for each of the 14 metrics and the scores are then totaled for the bill’s overall rating.

Critics of the Freedom Index attempted to use the metrics to evaluate the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB). The problem is that the BBB is not a single subject bill. The BBB has hundreds of elements making it impossible to honestly score. It is, however, possible to use the metrics dishonestly, which is what happened.

Take a metric from the Freedom Index like “Does it increase taxes” and apply it to the BBB and you will find the answer is yes and no because one element of the BBB may increase taxes while another decreases taxes. You can’t just find the average because a small change in a broad tax may be bigger than a big change in a narrow tax. This did not stop the critic who cherry picked the elements to fallaciously achieve the desired negative result, and then present that as “fact.”

But it gets worse. After abusing the Freedom Index metrics to make a false argument they went on to claim the Freedom Index was defective and shouldn’t be trusted. It is as if they tried to use a screwdriver as a hammer, failed miserably and then blamed the screwdriver for not being a good hammer.

Another example is when one of the critics claimed that our state party chairman was being illegally reimbursed for their travel expenses. To give the illusion of credibility they cite a portion of the State Party Rules. Their argument relies on the reader being unaware of the actual rules and the circumstances.
The Republican State Party Chairman is and unpaid position. There is no salary. Out of pocket expenses for travel, lodging, meals, etc. incurred in the furtherance of party business can be reimbursed. This is only fair as the Republican Party was instrumental in abolishing slavery in 1865.

The rule that the critic cited is the rule regarding the calculation of dues owed by the 44 counties to the state party to pay for the operational expenses of the party. Membership dues can only fund specific operational costs such as payroll, taxes, rent, office supplies, postage, insurance, etc., and those costs are capped at $250,000. Reimbursements for out of pocket expenses cannot be used to calculate the dues amounts.

It has always been allowed that out of pocket expenses incurred for party business can be reimbursed, but the critic falsely claimed that the dues rule prohibited the payment. Whether this lie was done in malevolence or plain ignorance and stupidity is unknown. What is known is that when traveling, Madam Chairman Moon often stays in the home of a local party member, avoiding lodging expenses altogether.

The grassroots conservative Republican Party is incredibly successful with the 2025 legislative session being one of the best ever for the conservative agenda. Those that lost elections to conservatives are predictably upset and remain as seething critics. They are not critical of the Democrats, or Marxists, or socialists or lobbyists. No, they are critical of the conservatives, which tells you all you need to know.

Winners analyze, losers criticize. Critics may claim that they have a noble mission to bring “transparency” and “accountability” when the fact is these people are losers, often cowering and afraid behind anonymous screen names. They lose elections, they lose power, and they lose respect. They are upset they are not in charge and since you can’t argue with success they attack successful conservatives with sophistry fueled by lies.

Now that you know how they use sophistry to deceive and persuade so you know what to look for, they are easy to spot. When you spot these losers, do the one thing they hate the most. Ignore them.

It’s just common sense.