Political Argument in a Polarized Age: Reason and Democratic Life

by Scott F Aikin, Robert B Talisse

From obnoxious public figures to online trolling and accusations of “fake news”, almost no one seems able to disagree without hostility. But polite discord sounds farfetched when issues are so personal and fundamental that those on opposing sides appear to have no common ground. How do you debate the “enemy”? Philosophers Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse show that disagreeing civilly, even with your sworn enemies, is a crucial part of democracy. Rejecting the popular view that civility requires a polite and concessive attitude, they argue that our biggest challenge is not remaining calm in the face of an opponent, but rather ensuring that our political arguments actually address those on the opposing side. Too often politicians and pundits merely simulate political debate, offering carefully structured caricatures of their opponents. These simulations mimic political argument in a way designed to convince citizens that those with whom they disagree are not worth talking to. Good democracy thrives off conflict, but until we learn the difference between real and simulated arguments we will be doomed to speak at cross-purposes. Aikin and Talisse provide a crash course in political rhetoric for the concerned citizen, showing readers why understanding the structure of arguments is just as vital for a healthy democracy as debate over facts and values. But there’s a sting in the tail - no sooner have we learned rhetorical techniques for better disagreement than these techniques themselves become weapons with which to ignore our enemies, as accusations like “false equivalence” and “ad hominem” are used to silence criticism. Civility requires us to be eternally vigilant to the ways we disagree.

Genres: Politics

135 pages, Kindle Edition

Published April 20, 2020

Reviews

[adeline]

(Read for HCSPiP)

Girl.... 129 pages and no bibliography... no footnotes?

[Serge]

Going to use this book as a primer for our new civil discourse club . Here are key excerpts
* Democracy can't be fixed (1)
* Political factions have a tendency to transform their members into polarized extremists who grow incapable of seeing their political opponents as fellow citizens (2)
* Our enactment of democratic citizenship leads to a kind of polarization that dismantles our democratic capacities. (2)
* The need to engage in argument with those with whom one disagrees prompts certain forms of democratic dysfunction. (3)
* Fractious disagreements is an essential cog in the machinery of democratic politics (3)
* Political divisions and antagonisms have reached such a pitch that citizens indeed find it difficult to see why their political opponents are their equals (4)
* Civility produces its own discontent. Political argument, even when civil, has challenges that branch out to our larger culture and that loop back on themselves (6)
* The trouble is that factionalized and polarized citizens begin to regard any deviation from their own preferred political position as tantamount to adopting an intolerable view (7)
* Democracy is also a suspicious moral proposal. It is the thesis that you may be required to live according to rules that you reject, simply because they are favored by others (9)
* Democracy apportions equal power to its citizens, regardless of their ability to wield it responsibly. (9)
* Political disagreement runs deeper than this. It frequently involves conflicting judgments of justice, meaning, and value, differences among citizens concerning what we, collectively, ought to do. (11)
* Political critique, challenge, resistance, and activism are all part of democracy (12)
*Real world political conflict, rancor, and disputation are not necessarily failures of democracy; they are exercises of democracy (13)
* Civility is also readiness to offer to one's interlocutors in political disagreement reasons and arguments that one sincerely believes they could appreciate the force of (17-18)
* Evaluating an argument is different from deciding whether to accept or reject a claim, and it's different from deciding whether to accept or reject a claim, and it's different from being steadfast in affirming a position (21)
* To put the point simplistically, we can regard our political opponents as our equals only if we can sustain the distinction between seeing them as wrong and seeing them as stupid, incompetent, and cognitively depraved. (29)
* To be sure, democratic citizens enjoy freedom of association, and democratic politics depends upon citizens' ability to form like minded coalitions devoted to particular policies and platforms. But when such groups are formed among like minded citizens who are also convinced that anyone outside the group is therefore depraved and incapable of democratic citizenship, distinctive pathologies emerge, leading to the further dismantling of our democratic capacities [belief polarization] (31)
* Political intransigeance, deadlock, and resentment are familiar features of the political order (37)
* our democracy is devolving into a brawl among political factions that can no longer discern a basis for the political equality of their opponents (40)
* It turns out that although we often engage in argument with the aim of convincing others, this cannot be the standard for proper argument. When we argue strictly in order to win converts, we fail to argue at all
* Memes are satisfying, but they are so only because they are empty mimics of appropriate criticism (67)
* Deep disagreements threaten our identities. (79)
* No citizen is required to manifest the public virtue of civility within a community that generally disregards it. And this is especially so when those who are wielding the institutional power of the government routinely flout the virtue of civility. (97)
* The prevalence of the ad hominem in political debate is easy to explain. Given the carefully curated and time constrained forums in which most public political discourse occurs, it is just easier for disputants to talk about each other than about the ideas and policies over which they disagree. (99)
* In order to disagree civilly, we must argue well. Arguing well requires that we develop the skills needed to evaluate arguments, both our own and those offered by others (103)
* Frequently, political argumentation is engaged for the sake of "owning" the other side, shutting down the opposition, and closing the discussion (108)
* The repair of our argumentative culture starts with self-criticism (114)

[Matilda Rossi]

In this essay, which I read for a university course, Aikin and Talisse reflect on how democratic life can be improved by raising the quality of argumentation in public debate. Although written by two academics, the book is intended for a general audience, making it highly accessible and quick to read. The ideas it presents, however, are far from trivial. Instead, they shed light on some of the most widespread "pathologies" of contemporary politics and offer practical tools for curbing their spread.

In my view, the book's only real weakness lies in its choice of material. The authors could have drawn on a broader range of cases representing different political perspectives, rather than repeatedly returning to the same themes. In this respect, I find it somewhat ironic that authors so concerned with the problem of bias chose to include only negative examples taken from the Republican side of the political spectrum.

[Ietrio]

Governmental bureaucrats masquerading as thinkers. Overall they are telling you to love the game and hate the players. And not all players, just some, the ones that "they" tell you to hate.