The
moral of course is that he did not in fact make soup from a nail; he made soup in spite of the nail, which was a simple
prop to divert attention.
As
much as we may like to think we’re too clever to fall for some ruse that
obvious, we are often too quick to draw a line from cause to effect. A forklift operator takes a corner too
sharply and damages some shelving. He
was listening to loud rock music through his ear buds, so that must be what
caused the accident. But, he was also
wearing a blue shirt at the time, so maybe blue shirts cause accidents. He had a cheese Danish for breakfast that
morning. Could the cheese Danish be the
culprit?
We
are bombarded with these messages in advertising. A man drives this or that brand of car and he
gets the girl; a woman’s adoring family smiles approvingly because she gets their
clothes cleaner with this or that laundry detergent; a wife gazes at her
husband adoringly as they walk hand-in-hand because he asked his doctor about
this or that prescription drug. You want
to be like these people? You buy the product.
In
this election year, there will be a veritable blitzkrieg of recycled “soup from a nail” arguments. There were more jobs when this party was in
office, therefore they created jobs. The
deficit was smaller when the other was in charge, therefore they must be more
financially responsible. Another
candidate was able to obtain “bi-partisan support” for his referendum,
therefore he can get people to work together. They will pounce on every “hot button” issue
with this convoluted logic. As I’ve
stated repeatedly: it’s all smoke and mirrors, it’s sleight of hand, it’s
confounding.
It’s
soup from a nail.
(P.S.
The forklift operator crashed because he’d been up half the night playing Fallout 4 and binging on energy drinks.)