When a politician argues for re-election on the basis of personal promises rather than policies, which fallacy are they using?

When a politician argues for re-election based on personal promises rather than specific policies, they are engaging in a form of reasoning that detracts from the need for substantive discussion about issues and solutions. This approach is aligned with the fallacy known as "Begging the Question."

This fallacy occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than supporting it. In this case, the politician is not providing solid policies or evidence that justify re-election; instead, they are resting their case solely on their character or personal assurances. This circular reasoning often leaves the important discussions about effective governance or policy outcomes unaddressed, as the argument pivots back to the promises made by the individual rather than the concrete implications of those promises.

Engaging in such rhetoric may lead the audience to take the politician's intent or integrity at face value, without critically evaluating whether their promises translate into realizable and effective policy actions. Therefore, this line of argument exemplifies "Begging the Question" by prioritizing personal assurances over actionable, policy-driven discussions that can be independently assessed.