As a person who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates, the drop in the level of public political argument in the intervening fifty years is breathtaking. Nixon was noted for his debating skills and his drama-queen "Checkers" speech. Kennedy was also noted for his reasoning and rhetorical flourishes. But, ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP have walked away from serious debate in favor of posturing, name-calling, smears, and confrontation. Newt Gingrich's infamous list of adjectives to smear the Dems with is a good measure of how the GOP has treated argumentation for the last twenty years.
You might say that the GOP are entitled to do this, but that its the media's job to take them to task for it. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. The corporate media? The Bush butt-kissing media? Not a snowball's chance in hell. The media doesn't want people to think; it wants them to emote. They want a shouting match, not a reasoned debate.
So, it falls to us bloggers to take the GOP to task for its vulgar debasement of political debate. Below the fold, I will call upon some professional help to do this.
There is a video course in Argumentation, which can be purchased from The Teaching Company(TTC). Now, to laypeople like me, argumentation is synonymous with debating. Recently, TTC sent me an advertising brochure which printed one entire lecture of this course, entitled "The Five Key Assumptions of Argumentation".
I am going to walk through those assumptions to show how GOP rhetoric ignores or violates every underlying principle of honest debate.
- Argumentation is audience dependent
Claims are not universal timeless truths; they are subject to the actual acceptance of listeners.
The GOP rhetoric is nothing but "universal, timeless truths": The free market can do no wrong. America is a Christian nation. The poor need punishment to work; the rich need enticements. Tax cuts are always good. Government is always too big. Government does not work. We need prayer in schools, courtrooms, military barracks, and everywhere.
The GOP does not believe its claims are subject to anyone's acceptance. They speak and behave as though God has spoken to them, and them alone. So, the GOP's pitch never changes, no matter what the situation or who the audience. As someone cracked to Michael Steele yesterday, "Do all GOP events look like The 700 Club?"
- Argumentation takes place under conditions of uncertainty
We don't argue about things that are certain...When we look at controversies, the uncertainty implies that the outcome is not known for sure. (but) We can't wait...we have to reach some decision.
With the GOP, we most certainly do argue about things that are certain. Witness the ludicrous revisionism of recent days that FDR caused the Depression. This case is 80 years dead, and still the GOP will not concede the point. With the GOP, decisions that they don't like are never "reached". The GOP never concedes a point - even if that point has been shot, drowned, dismembered, and had a wooden stake pounded through its heart. A few diaries ago, I wrote of "zombie talking points". - the fact that, despite a deluge of fact, the GOP continue to make controversies simmer.
In fact, controversy is their basic tactic. They don't have any detailed plan of their own to offer, so they spend their time looking for microscopic nits in their opponents plans to inflate into "controversies". Look at the creationist nutcases and their "teach the controversy" slogan. These people don't want agreement, they want a commotion, a media circus, to aid them in recruiting other nutcases. In the short term, all they offer is "outrage". As for a long-term resolution to a controversy, they don't want compromise, they want submission.
- Argumentation involves justification for claims.
...reasons are considered to be acceptable if they would persuade a reasonable person who is exercising critical judgment...The adherence of a critical listener is the substitute for a certainty we cannot achieve
In yesterday's diary, I reviewed how, during the Rove/Cheney administration, reasons (i.e., justifications) were replaced by excuses, and facts were replaced by assertions. That is, the corporate media has abdicated its role as critical listener on behalf of the citizenry. It has become a rubber stamp for GOP policies and talking points. Rebuttals from Democrats are either ignored completely, distorted, or countered by more evasions, denials, and assertions.
How can there be an argument when the presumptive referee is in the tank for one contestant? It is like calling a kangaroo court a legitimate trial.
- Argumentation is a fundamentally cooperative enterprise.
Arguers share a common goal of reaching the best possible decision under the circumstances; otherwise...one would walk away, or one would impose his or her will by force.
If there is one word which does not describe the GOP, it is "cooperative". This is the "party of no", the obstructionists. These are people who have put party above country for the last eight years. For them, the best possible decision is the best decision for the GOP, not for the United States.
In fact, the GOP does exactly what our expert says will not be done in a genuine debate: they walk away or they attempt to impose their will by force (i.e., filibusters).
- Argumentation entails risks.
Due to uncertainty and possibility of failure. When people engage in arguing, they mutually assume those risks?...Why?...because they don't know for sure that they are right.
The face the GOP presents to the world accepts no risks. They have proven they will never admit to failure. Look at their non-contrition and blame-shifting for the Iraq mess, the Wall St. messes, the Gitmo/torture mess.
The GOP are certain they are right. They do not engage in argument. They engage in propaganda to beat their opponents into submission.
----
So, what's the takeaway here? That we currently do not have a political debate in this country. We have a gang of thugs (the GOP) holed up in a fortress (the media). They will not come out, and so far we have not been able to batter down their fortifications.
The next time someone says they want to have an argument with you about politics, maybe you can pull out a card with some ground rules about the difference between an argument and a shouting match. Maybe you can preface the argument with examples (such as I have cited here) that you will reject as deal-breakers. But, I would give the following advice for you to apply:
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.