or, a brief lesson in why rhetoric is here to stay
It seems that everyone has an opinion on political rhetoric, its use, misuse, and abuse in modern political discourse. At least that is quickly becoming the developing meme after Saturday’s violence in Tucson, Arizona. What’s missing, however, in all these exhortations to more civilized politics is a clearer understanding of the driving forces behind political rhetoric. The unfortunate reality is that modern-liberal politics leaves us with little else. [NB: By modern-liberal, I include all practitioners of American politics because we are all liberal in that we believe in rights, liberty, democracy, etc…]
Rhetoric in American Politics
Politics is, by and large, a contest between parties for about the proper way to live and to govern: healthcare, national defense, abortion, taxes, and so on, take your pick. In every aspect of social life there are disagreements about the proper way to live and the role (or lack of role) government should have in that arena. But in the American democratic regime, citizens are lead to build particular habits, namely the desire for equal treatment under the law. The egalitarian nature of our social structure engenders a belief that we should all be subject to the same laws, regardless of social status. And most of the time, this makes sense. It is a basic presumption in liberal politics. The problems arise when we start thinking about particular laws and policies because each separate group of citizens will have a different view as to be best way to make laws and policies. This is not a profound insight.
James Madison diagnosed this phenomena at America’s Founding. In Federalist 10, he wrote that there are two responses to faction in a free society: remove the causes, or mitigate its effects. Removing the causes, no doubt, is attractive because without faction, government can go about the people’s business. But as Madison points out there are only two ways to remove the causes of faction: “the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Neither of these solutions is ideal. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” But without liberty, we could not advocate for our own positions, policies, and political preferences. We have to maintain and protect free speech for all citizens or else we risk losing it for ourselves.
The second “solution” is a little more complex, but no less ideal a response to political conflict and faction. It is impossible to give “every citizen the same opinions.”
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
In other words, every man, woman, and child on the planet reasons imperfectly and as such, we all will reason to different conclusions. But we are emotionally attached to our reasoned conclusions and as a result it is very difficult to persuade us against that which we have already directed our passion. Our diverse interests and passions lead men and women “more more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
a Goods vs. the Good
But even talk about the common good will necessarily breed contempt, distrust, and conflict for much the same reason that conflict exists in the first place. All political action is directed at some idea of a good, whether it is to preserve against decay, or to bring about reform and improvement. Progressives typically think about improving society though new laws and new rights, conservatives direct their efforts toward a faithful obedience to the vision of the American Founders. What is common is that each group has an idea about the best way to govern. Even within the large groupings of left/right, there are smaller factions who agree on a principle but not on the policy solutions to bring those principles into fruition.
The point that I am trying to make here is different groups have a different vision about what is the good, or rather, what is the highest good that governs political society. Because people disagree and because the stakes are so high (who thinks “the highest good” is not a big deal?), when interacting in the public sphere there is bound to be heated discourse because the passions of citizens are deeply connected to their belief in the good. Few, if anyone, with an ardent belief in the best way to govern will want to acquiesce, or compromise because even a small concession is often viewed as the first step toward ultimate defeat. And since “our opponents” are not interested in making concessions, “we” are left with no choice but to de-legitimize them. If the other side is not considered a legitimate player, then “we” do not have to consider their appeals, interests, or otherwise account for them. Democrats and Republicans are inclined to this kind of logic. It is not difficult to find examples from both the right and left casting their opponents as illegitimate: remember, former President Busch wasn’t just wrong about Iraq, he was a war criminal, heartless, and often was seen depicted as Hitler or Satan; likewise, liberals are not simply wrong about national defense, they hate America and want to transform it into something entirely entirely different through Orwellian tactics.
Concluding thoughts
It is unlikely that Saturday’s horrible events will have any lasting impact or change on the collective behavior in American politics precisely for these reasons. Everyone involved in politics sees too much at stake if their side loses, and with so few people willing to listen and be persuaded by sound arguments, there is little recourse other than to brand the political enemies in harsh terms and to use the language of warfare, sports, and hunting when talking about how to win elections and policy debates.
But I also suspect the deeper culprit is the dearth of sound reasoning in America writ large. No longer are children taught the fundamentals of logic in grammar school, or college students required to master the arts of persuasion and genuine rhetoric. Indeed, even in my own field of political science, most students at the graduate level are more interested in “proving” assumptions that they already believe—i.e. the logical fallacy of a priori reasoning—rather than investigate the truth of political phenomenon. Until we revive the learning and mastery of these basic principles of sound reasoning, propaganda will continue to dominate political discourse. America will be worse off until then.
-
returningde6 liked this
-
fergusonicd890 liked this
-
stephensok85 liked this
-
thekatabasis posted this
