Search Results for: policy argumentation

Defenders of Trump’s China policies are avoiding rational policy argumentation, and his critics aren’t doing much better

I study train wrecks in public deliberation, and they’re all times when the people making decisions lived and breathed a world of demagoguery.  In that world, the media says, “This policy is right because there is a legitimate need, and if you disagree with this policy then you don’t acknowledge the severity of the need.” … Continue reading “Defenders of Trump’s China policies are avoiding rational policy argumentation, and his critics aren’t doing much better”

Policy argumentation

Image from here. Policy argumentation involves several steps: First, identifying the issue (the stasis). This is where so many arguments go wrong—our impulse is to make all issues personal, and either about whether we are being respected enough, or whether our in-group is being respected enough. Shifting the issue to other stases thus helps us … Continue reading “Policy argumentation”

Trump supporters/critics and policy argumentation

I spend a lot of time in public and expert realms of political dispute. And, one thing I’ve noticed in the last two years is that, in the public areas, supporters of Trump have stopped engaging in rational argumentation about him, but they used to. They’re not even engaging in argumentation at all. They’ll sometimes … Continue reading “Trump supporters/critics and policy argumentation”

Demagoguery, metaphors, and policy argumentation

A couple of folks have asked me questions about demagoguery. Guess what, I’m pretty informed about this! The basic point about demagoguery is that it insists that we don’t have to engage in policy argumentation—we can settle all issues through deciding who is in the ingroup and who is in the outgroup. Demagoguery says we … Continue reading “Demagoguery, metaphors, and policy argumentation”

Goebbels pt. IV: Argument v. argumentation

Basically, I’m saying that fyc teaches argument and not argumentation, and that fyc, as currently taught, often rewards demagoguery, unintentionally. It does so by encouraging students to assume there are two sides on every issue, and that those two sides are identities (“liberals” v. “conservatives,” or “pro-“ or “anti” whatever). If there is any discussion … Continue reading “Goebbels pt. IV: Argument v. argumentation”

“Liberals look down on you” is evil genius rhetoric: on demonizing rational argumentation

In an earlier post, I said that the GOP is, like any other useful political movement, a coalition. Thus, like any other coalition, it has groups with profoundly different policy agenda. The normal way to solve that problem is through bargaining, compromise, and deliberation. But the GOP can’t openly engage in those practices because two … Continue reading ““Liberals look down on you” is evil genius rhetoric: on demonizing rational argumentation”

The ten rules for rational-critical argumentation

I’ve often mentioned that I think Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s rules for rational-critical argumentation are useful. But they’re written in a way that makes them really hard to understand, and I’ve long wanted to put them into more straightforward language. I’ve procrastinated doing that because first I have to explain a bunch of things. The … Continue reading “The ten rules for rational-critical argumentation”

Policy issues are about policies: Or, the problem of Big Bike

I’ve been writing about how the neighborhood mailing list exemplifies damaging (and proto-demagogic, if not actively demagogic) ways that Americans think about policy deliberation. This one is about bike lanes. Our neighborhood happens to be a great place for biking, and, so, many people come to the neighborhood to bike. Some of those cyclists are … Continue reading “Policy issues are about policies: Or, the problem of Big Bike”

That there is a legitimate need doesn’t mean your policy is right

I’m a scholar of train wrecks in public deliberation—times that communities came to bad decisions, although they had all the time, information, and counter-arguments necessary to come to better ones. And, although they smear across eras, cultures, and particular situations (but all more or less within what is considered the “Western Tradition”), they share the … Continue reading “That there is a legitimate need doesn’t mean your policy is right”

Rational argumentation and whether Dems should impeach Trump

I’m getting really tired of lefties slamming Pelosi for not insisting on impeaching Trump. A far too common argument is that impeaching Trump is the obvious thing to do, and she is too corrupt, craven, cowardly, or corporate to take the obviously correct line of action. This is a standard—and profoundly anti-democratic—position that people all … Continue reading “Rational argumentation and whether Dems should impeach Trump”