It’s easy to win a debate if you portray your opponent as a sentimentalist. Read this New York Times story about the immigration bill. The following paragraph leapt out at me:

“Look, he [President Bush] understands, having been involved in this debate for many years, that it is an extremely emotional and emotionally charged issue, so he is not surprised that it engenders strong reaction,” said Joel Kaplan, the White House deputy chief of staff. “I think everybody is pleased here that we are making progress.”

“Extremely emotional.” “Emotionally charged.” “Engenders strong reaction.” The White House is framing the immigration debate as a conflict between reason and emotion. Reason is represented by President Bush and those who favor the bill; emotion is represented by those who oppose the bill. Emotion clouds judgment. When emotion conflicts with reason, therefore, you go with reason. Don’t fall for this insulting rhetorical trickery. Either both sides are emotional about the issue—and to the same degree—or neither is.