One of the most misused phrases on Townhall is "ad hominem". In the comments to a recent column I found a perfect example. While the phrase "ad hominem" was not actually used, the concept is there.

The author, Michele Malkin, called Obama "Snob-ama", which was perfectly relevant, if a bit childish*, as the entire article was about how Sen. Obama and others are elitists. A poster, apparently taking umbrage with the name, decided to respond by saying:

Hey Miss Slanty Eyes

The last time I called you this name, after you had given Obama a ridiculous a nickname, I was
flagged.

So I am going to try it again. I guess what is
good for the columnist is good for the poster,
don't you think.

Now, the logic here is pretty obvious, but also completely wrong. The author was "calling him a name" only in the sense that she was altering her name to something mocking, but it was completely consistent with the article's topic and quite relevant. The commenter's nickname is only comparable if he thinks "slanty eyes" is somehow a valid criticism. For example, if he thinks Asians are genetically inferior and incapable of making valid arguments. Otherwise, his name calling consists simply of pointing out a physical trait, which is irrelevant.

In other words, his comment is an ad hominem attack, while Mrs. Malkin's is not.

Which brings me to my point, what is an ad hominem attack and what is not. As this concept seems to elude many on Townhall, I will spend some time on the subject.

First we shall briefly define what an ad hominen argument is, then we will spend a lot of time on what is not an ad hominem argument. This second  seems to be the most important subject, as many accuse their critics of "ad hominem", when in reality they mere mean that it seems to be a personal criticism. Not all personal criticism is ad hominem, as we shall see. But that will come a bit later.

First, let us start with a definition. It will be easier to decide what is not an ad hominem criticism if we start out knowing what is. So, let us start with the most common (if incomplete) definitions.

We usually do not hear a formal definition of "ad hominem", instead those trying to define it usually start with the adage "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger", which is fine as far as it goes, but manages to miss a few key points. Yes, an ad hominem is, at its heart, a substitution of criticism of the opponent for any substantive response, but that requires some clarification.

So, allow me to posit a definition, and see if we can agree that it works. An ad hominem argument is a criticism of someone presenting an argument when such criticism is totally irrelevant to the dispute. I know that is a bit vague, but perhaps we can clear it up some as we go along. Perhaps if we use ti to examine what is not an ad hominem, it will help make things a bit more clear.

Let us start with this position: if the subject of the argument is a person, then criticism of that person is perfectly valid, and in no way ad hominem. If we are discussing the character of Bill Clinton, bringing up Monica Lewinsky is not an "ad hominem" criticism, it is completely relevant to the argument. This is an important rule, as to define any "personal" criticism as "ad hominem" is to make some subjects simply off limits and some debates impossible. As this is a political site, arguments about character are not just inevitable, but are quite important as well, so excluding "personal attacks" is simply absurd. Thus, we need to exclude form ad hominem any criticism which is relevant to the debate.

A second, similar exclusion, are criticisms of the person presenting the argument if such criticisms are relevant. This is a bit more complicated,as it doesn't come up often. For example, if we are discussing taxation, and you say that you pay 45% marginal tax rate, it is not an "ad hominem" for me to present evidence that you have lied in the past. As you are making arguments based upon personal knowledge, your reliability is now a relevant questions, so criticizing your honesty is no longer out of bounds. Had you not presented such testimony, then, yes, such an argument would be an ad hominem, but once you offered up facts supported only by your own assertion that they were true, your honesty becomes subject to debate.

The third argument is the one which actually make a bit of a lie of my introduction, as well as my first example. You see, technically "ad hominem" applies only to a very specific situation. If A and B are arguing about politician X, it is an ad hominem argument for A to impugn the character of B, but not to impugn the character of X. Ad hominem, strictly defined, only means a personal attack on the opposing side, not the subject of your debate. In other words, my introduction (criticism of Obama) and my first example (criticism of Bill Clinton), are, strictly speaking, not ad hominem arguments unless I am debating with Obama or Clinton.

Of course, popular usage has broadened the phrase to include all irrelevant personal criticism, whether directed at the opposing side of the argument, the subject of the argument, or other parties**. Many people will use "ad hominem" to describe any irrelevant personal criticism, so many that I often assume that has become the common usage. It is common enough that I did not hesitate to use this broader definition to support both my introduction and my first example, where I presented situations which in no way fit the more strict definition.

But I will leave it up to my readers whether or not they wish to adopt the loose or strict definitions. I shall content myself with defining ad hominem thus "An ad hominem argument is a criticism of a person when such criticism is irrelevant to the subject in dispute". Whether you wish to limit it only to criticism of the opposing party or broaden it to cover any personal criticism is up to you.

What is not open to dispute is that it is not as broad as some make it. Ad hominem does not exclude all personal criticism from argument, just that which has no bearing on the debate.

----------------------------------------------------------------

* As the creator of the the term "Beelzebubba" to describe Bill Clinton, I plead guilty to having my childish moments as well. So I cannot fault Mrs. Malkin for hers.

** The impersonal nature of the internet makes the traditional definition harder to apply. If, as a comment on Mrs. Malkin's article someone posts "Malkin is an idiot", it is an ad hominem or not? If we assume he is debating Mrs. Malkin, it is a traditional ad hominem, if we assume he is debating other comment writers, it is not. Also,does it matter how it is worded? Does "You are an idiot" show his intent to debate Mrs. Malkin better than "Malkin is an idiot", making this more clearly a traditional ad hominem argument? I suppose a similar problem existed when argument was carried on in print or in correspondence, it is just much faster now.