Recently, an animated discussion appeared on one of my
Facebook friend’s feed that was based on what at first glance was a somewhat
incendiary comment made by Ben Carson, who currently serves in Donald Trump’s
cabinet as Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Mr. Carson, who in his
former life was a distinguished neurosurgeon, decided to wade into a current
controversy having to do with Donald Trump’s tweets criticizing Congressman
Elijah Cummings and referring to Cummings’ Baltimore 7th congressional district
as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would
want to live.” Dr. Carson compared the problems plaguing Baltimore to a cancer
patient “whose illness can have a devastating effect if ignored.”
Though the subsequent discussion on my friend’s Facebook
feed focused on whether or not Trump’s (and therefore Carson’s) comments were
racist, I was more interested in whether Carson’s analogy was accurate. And
that’s the focus of this particular post. People whose eyes glaze over when
English grammar is being discussed are hereby dismissed.
By definition
and application, analogies are not perfect, and using them in argument can be
tricky, since it’s often the subtle differences in comparisons that cause
trouble. People who rely on analogies as a significant element of their
argument are often called out by their critics for using inexact analogies.
This is probably what my friend was doing in reacting to Ben Carson’s comments,
though the real focus of her anger had to do with the racist nature of Trump’s
original tweets.
An analogy is
defined as a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of
explanation or clarification. Another way to explain it: an analogy is a thing
which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
Back in high
school, we were asked to solve analogy problems (there were analogy questions
on the SAT back then, though I think they’re no longer included). The task was
to solve a problem that was set up like this:
Something is to Something as Something Else is to Something
Else.
For instance:
Chair : Desk as Bench : Piano
We learned how
to solve analogy problems by creating a simple sentence that showed the
relationship between the first set of key words. Doing this would enable us to
evaluate a second set of key words to see if there was a clear relationship
with the first set.
For instance, in
the above analogy, you might create the following sentence that reflects the
relationship of the first set of key words:
You sit on a chair that is near a desk.
Assuming your
solution sentence is accurate, your solution choices would have to come as
close as possible to that framework. For instance, on a test, your choices for
the second set might be:
rug : floor
pencil : lead
wise : foolish
bench : piano
Your next task
would be to analyze the pairs to see how closely each came to your simple
sentence. Your selection would have meet the criteria in every possible way
(part of speech, logic, order of presentation, definitions, and so on). In the
sample above, bench : piano makes the best sense grammatically,
syntactically, and logically (you sit on a bench that is near a piano)
Back to Ben
Carson. As I said earlier, it seems that the real issue in my friend’s post is
whether Ben Carson’s analogy was apt and not whether and/or to what degree Donald Trump is
a racist, though this is where the thread inevitably went. When it comes to
whether Trump is a racist, I suspect there’s a lot of distance between those
who are convinced that he is and those who, while conceding that he’s boorish
or that he lacks social filters, and so on, don’t consider him to be racist.
Each side can make its own case, but it’s doubtful either side will change its
mind. Which means, we’re on safer ground if we stick with the real issue–Ben
Carson’s analogy (that the analogy was made by an esteemed surgeon who actually
practiced medicine in Baltimore for three decades and who also happens to be
black doesn’t seem to matter. Racism is racism).
I resisted my
first inclination to comment on my friend’s post because I know how futile it
is to discuss anything on social media having to do with politics in general
and Donald Trump in particular. But after reading the comments, I finally
decided to wade in to the roiling waters (metaphor!) of this debate, focusing
only and entirely on this question: Is Ben Carson’s analogy apt? I decided
to put it to the test and set it up as an SAT-type problem:
(rat and rodent
infested) mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient
For convenience
and clarity, I decided to condense the entire string of adjective phrases (rat
and rodent infested, dangerous and filthy) into a single noun in the first set
(“mess”) in order to balance grammatically with the single noun in the second
set (“cancer”), the assumption being that the word “mess” is fraught with
emotional imagery and meaning, much the way “cancer” is fraught with meaning
and imagery. Thus, with the implications of the word “mess” in mind, here’s my
analogy problem to analyze:
mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient
Now, I have to
solve the analogy problem by creating a simple sentence that hopefully shows
the relationship between the first set of key words.
Rat and rodent infestation (“mess”) is ruinous to the life,
health, vitality of Baltimore.
Assuming my
sentence is accurate (and if it’s not, I welcome any corrections), I now have
to use that same
sentence as a framework for analysis and see if it works with
the second half of the analogy:
Cancer cells are ruinous to the life, health, and vitality of a
patient
Personally, I
think Mr. Carson’s analogy works. Attempts to “heal” a hurting city by means of
state and local and maybe federal intervention should be as welcome to that
city as attempts by a qualified medical professional would be to a seriously
ill patient.
Ben Carson
referred to something called an “Opportunity Zones” program, a
Trump-administration program that incentivizes businesses to invest in
low-income cities. This is a federal program. But I do think it’s fair to ask
local officials—no matter what race, religion or creed—what they’re doing to
address blight, unemployment, crime, and poverty, in their cities.
In my view, Dr.
Carson’s comments were neither racist nor incendiary.
Trump’s, on the
other hand…?
*********
A few links (the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, sorry):
Trump Administration Offers New Flexibility in Opportunity Zones (Wall Street Journal April 2019)
HUD Leader Ben Carson Compares Baltimore to a Cancer Patient (Washington Post July 2019)
