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 June 3, 2020

Reviews

[adeline · Rating 1 out of 5]

(Read for HCSPiP)

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

[Matilda Rossi · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.