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?