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. “What Is Civil Engaged Argument and Why Does Aspiring to It Matter?” PS 45(3): 412-415.

“Communities are sets of relationships writ large” (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 conviction” (412)

Rules

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

Can’t call each other hypocrite, liar

Further, conventions of gentility:

“the gentleman from SC”

In House of Commons, “my right honourable friend”

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 “warranted”

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 “ad hominem” attacks, i.e., attacking personalities; no ridicule

process of “clash” and “extension” (debate terms)

How does partisan media poses threat to civil engaged argument?

Who do they identify as the “partisan media”?

Cable TV News channels

FoxNews, (doesn’t 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 “facts” 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 “political world as a Manichean place unburdened by complexity, ambiguity, or common ground” (413)

These negatives are also present in political advertizing but WORST OF ALL “bleed into” legislative debate

Example of Kerry and McCain debated health care reform, 2009

Elements of disdain, disrespect

Mischaracterization of McCain’s 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 “colleague” 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?