Citizenship and Civic Life

What Is Civil Engaged Argument and Why Does Aspiring to It Matter?

 

Based on article of the same title appearing in PS: Symposium on Political Civility

 

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Bruce Hardy.  2012. ÒWhat Is Civil Engaged Argument and Why Does Aspiring to It Matter?Ó  PS 45(3):  412-415.

 

 

ÒCommunities are sets of relationships writ largeÓ (412)

 

Political communities need to stay intact to govern

 

Excessive negativity, violating the norms of civil discourse, therefore, risk permanently rupturing the community

 

 

Rules and rituals of legislative life are there to preserve this balance

 

Comity is based on

the norm of reciprocal courtesy

 

and presupposes that the differences between members of Congress and parties are philosophical not personal,

 

that parties to a debate are entitled to the presumption that their views are legitimate even if not correct,

 

and that those on all sides are persons of good will and integrity motivated by convictionÓ (412)


Rules

that Congress imposes on itself each session are chosen to preserve this atmosphere of mutual respect

 

CanÕt call each other hypocrite, liar

 

Further, conventions of gentility:

Òthe gentleman from SCÓ

 

In House of Commons, Òmy right honourable friendÓ

 

Disposition to unite, conciliate


Argument and the Rules of Political Engagement

 

Argument – needs statement of proof in the form of supporting evidence

 

If evidence is sufficient, the statement is ÒwarrantedÓ

 

i.e. legitimate basis for continued argument

 

fairness and accuracy of the evidence should be subject to scrutiny

 

testimony of those who are self-interested is suspect

 

evidence should not be ripped from its context

 

like items need to be compared to like

 

plan needs to be tested by asking whether it meets the need or not

 

and whether its advantages outweigh the disadvantages

 

THINK about your issues here

 

Can you follow this process in testing the arguments (rhetoric and prescriptions) around your issue?


Norms of Civil Engagment

social interchange (412)

 

alternative sides have right to be heard and accurately paraphrase by those of opposing bent

 

shouting down, making straw man – not allowed

 

no using what House calls Òad hominemÓ attacks, i.e., attacking personalities;  no ridicule

 

process of ÒclashÓ and ÒextensionÓ (debate terms)

 


How does partisan media poses threat to civil engaged argument?

 

 

Who do they identify as the Òpartisan mediaÓ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cable TV News channels

     FoxNews, (doesnÕt mention MSNBC)

     NPR

At times sounds like CNN, at other times like CNN is not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By reinforcing rather than challenging their audiences beliefs

 

Selectively choosing ÒfactsÓ that reinforce their beliefs

 

**By insulating their watchers from facts, information that would challenge their beliefs

 

By playing to emotion

 

By balkanizing, polarizing

 

By modeling ridicule

e.g., Rush Limbaugh calling the woman who testified about birth control a slut!!

 

By presenting the Òpolitical world as a Manichean place unburdened by complexity, ambiguity, or common groundÓ (413)

 


These negatives are also present in political advertizing but WORST OF ALL Òbleed intoÓ legislative debate

 

Example of Kerry and McCain debated health care reform, 2009

 

Elements of disdain, disrespect

 

Mischaracterization of McCainÕs position as a presidential candidate, used to imply that he was now a hypocrite

 

Yet, then they agree on a common source of data – Factcheck.org!!!!

 

[not GAO or CBO, although these are important bases for this in other debates]

 

 

Notes shift back to more collegial tone

Referring to McCain as ÒcolleagueÓ and, eventually,  friend, not in the third person

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think?  Are they on to something here?

 

Is partisan media eroding our ability for civil engaged argument?