Thinking Points Discussion of Chapter 8 - Part 1: The Art of Arguments
Knowledge of the political mind empowers us with tools we can use to reach out to others and share ideas effectively. An essential tool is the argument frame. It provides a means for expressing values persuasively to convince others of the inherent validity of our own perspectives while also motivating them to embrace our perspectives. This installment explores the components of the argument frame in political discourse.
Last week we looked at strategic initiatives during our discussion of Chapter 7. This week I would like to introduce the first part of the discussion of Chapter 8 about the art of arguments. The argument frame is presented today. Next week I will introduce the power of narratives as a special kind of argument and conclude this final chapter of Thinking Points.
Quick Comment About the Discussion:
I am an active
participant in these discussions throughout the week that they are
published. When the next installment is posted on Rockridge Nation, I
devote more attention to it and don't get back to earlier articles very
often. So if you want to participate during the time I am available to
moderate discussions, please post your comments between now and next
Monday, June 4th.
The Characteristic Features of Successful Arguments
Chapter 8 starts out with the following:
The moral worldviews, visions, values, principles, frames, and language all come together in political arguments. As we look at arguments, we find certain characteristics common to all effective and successful arguments...
Here are the characteristics listed:
- The have moral premises, that is, they are about what is right.
- They use versions of contested values taken from a particular moral worldview.
- They have an implicit or explicit narrative structure, i.e., they all tell stories with heroes, villains, victims, common themes, etc.
- They also serve as counterarguments: They determine arguments on the other side.
- They have issue-defining frames that set up the problem and the solution.
- They use commonplace frames - frames known so widely that they resonate immediately, whether true or not.
- They use language with surface frames that evoke deeper frames.
How Argument Frames Work
Remember that frames are not simply about words. They are the mental structures by which we understand and interact with the world. Frames can be constructed using other frames (as argument frames are). The general argument frame has several parts:
- Moral Values: In order for something to be right or wrong there must be an evaluative component. Progressive arguments tend to express the values of empathy, responsibility, fairness, opportunity, and so on.
- Fundamental principles: The context for the argument is built around principles that are assumed to be valid for the situation under consideration.
- Issue-defining frame: Each argument will be about a specific issue or problem.
- Commonplace frame: The argument will "make sense" because it expresses a commonplace understanding of how the world works - even if this understanding isn't true!
- Inference: Information provided by the combination of these values, principles, and frames combines to generate a novel perspective particular to the argument.
This general structure acts like a template that structures all progressive arguments . Someone who is attuned to politics can easily understand or construct a "new" argument from a set of principles and values when a new issue is defined.
More About Commonplace Frames
Commonplace frames are used to understand how the world works. Some are relatively accurate. Others are grossly inaccurate. Either way, they are used in political arguments and it is important to recognize them for three reasons: (i) so you're not taken in by the false ones, (ii) so you can recognize and counter them, and (iii) so you can factor them out to see the more general argument frame.
Commonplace frames are not a matter of moral values, fundamental principles, issue-defining frames, or even surface frames. They are taken as a matter of common knowledge. Let's look at some examples that are frequently used in political arguments:
Bad Apple Frame
The saying "A bad apple spoils the barrel" implies that if you remove the bad apple or a small number of bad apples, the others will be fine. The rot is localized and will not spread. Rot is a metaphor for immorality here. Those who are rotten are considered to be isolated morally bad people. This commonplace frame was used to limit the inquiry into torture as a systemic problem of the military during the Abu Ghraib scandal. It was similarly applied to limit investigations into the culture of Enron by selecting a few executives (Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay).
Tradition is Right Frame
This frame says that if some idea or institution has "passed the test of time," then it is right. This frame is used in arguments against allowing gays and lesbians to marry, where it is argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
Teenage Minimum Wage Frame
This frame is more specific and claims that most people earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first jobs (say, at fast food restaurants) who are supported by their parents. This understanding is then used to argue against raising the minimum wage, which would allegedly kill off entry-level jobs since wages will be too high. Both claims are false, but this commonplace frame is widely accepted.
Adaptation Frame
This frame says that if some phenomenon is natural or pervasive, you can't overcome it and may as well accept it and adapt as well as possible. Liberals use this to argue for legalizing marijuana: People are naturally going to smoke pot, just like they are going to drink alcohol, and you may as well legalize it. Liberals also use it when supporting sex education: People are going to have sex anyway, so the best thing to do is educate them about safe practices and birth control methods. Safe abortion advocates use it too: Many women with unwanted pregnancies always have, and will, get abortions, so it's best to make abortion safe and legal.
Slippery Slope Frame
There is a point on a scale where everything appears to be fine. But there is also a tendency or force operating so that moving a short distance farther on the scale will lead to more and more movement in the same direction, culminating in disaster or some ludicrous results. Conservatives have used this frame to argue against minimum wage. Many progressives fear the recent Supreme Court decision about "partial birth abortions" (a conservative frame) is a slippery slope to getting rid of Roe v. Wade.
All of these commonplace frames are used in arguments so it is helpful to learn how to spot them. Hopefully, this list will assist you in learning to recognize them.
Example: Obama on the Estate Tax
The following statements provide us with an example of a successful progressive argument by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois on the proposed repeal of the estate tax from June 7, 2006.
First of all, let's call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is - the Paris Hilton Tax Break. It's about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses at a time when American taxpayers can't afford it...
I'm eager for the American people to choose. Because if people want their government to spend one trillion dollars - an amount more than double what we've spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror combined - on tax breaks for multimillionaires and multibillionaires, then the Republican party is your party.
If the American people want to borrow billions more from the Chinese, spend billions more in taxes to pay the interest on our debt, and watch billions cut from health care and education and Gulf Coast reconstruction, then the Paris Hilton Tax Break is your tax break.
This isn't about saving small businesses and family farms. We can reform the estate tax to protect these Americans. We can set it at a level where no small business or family farm is ever affected - and we can do it in a way that doesn't cost us a trillion dollars. In fact, we've offered to reform the estate tax in this way time and again...
I would ask the American people one question. At a time like this - a time where America finds itself deeply in debt, struggling to pay for a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, security for our homeland, armor for our troops, health care for our workers, and education for our children - at at time of all this need, can you imagine opening Forbes magazine, looking at their list of 400 wealthiest Americans, and realizing that our government gave the people on that list over a trillion dollars' worth of tax breaks?
I know I can't imagine that. And I would bet that most Americans can't imagine that either. So if the Republicans want to bring up their Paris Hilton Tax Break to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because I can think of no better statement about where and how we differ in priorities than that.
There is a lot going on in this argument that is worth looking at. Here are the argument frame components for this argument:
- Moral Values: Empathy, fairness, and responsibility. We care about people and have a responsibility to act on that care in a fair manner.
- Fundamental principles:
(a) The common good - individual goals depend upon the use of the
common wealth for the common good. (b) Fairness - you should get what you deserve. Hard-working, needy people deserve the schools and hospitals those dollars can provide more than heirs who didn't earn the money and who will get half of it anyway.
- Issue-defining frame: The issue here is the estate tax.
- Commonplace frame: The economic equivalence frame - which asserts that not taking in money owed is economically equivalent to giving it away. It can also be expressed as not giving money to those owed being equivalent to taking it away.
- Inference: Keeping the estate tax allows us to use our trillion dollars where it is most needed - on our health and education infrastructure and on protecting our troops - instead of giving it away to people who neither need it nor deserve it.
Obama's statements also use a narrative structure, complete with heroes and villains: Ending the estate tax is a threat to the most vulnerable people - taking away money for what they desperately need. They are the victims. The villains are those who would take it from them - conservative legislators and some of the nation's wealthiest families, who have spent millions of dollars lobbying for the repeal of this tax. The hero is you, the voter, who can change the course of the nation. You can rescue tens of millions of worthy and needy people from the clutches of villainous conservatives who want to transfer a trillion dollars from the common wealth of hardworking Americans to wealthy individual heirs and heiresses who didn't earn it and don't need it.
All of this undermines conservative arguments while promoting a progressive vision.
Rational Arguments?
How does the argument frame compare with the rationalist approach critiqued in Chapter 3? Do we consciously deliberate about the facts to demonstrate which ones correspond most accurately to the real world? Hopefully, by now we can all agree that this is not the way arguments work in politics. What do you think? How has your burgeoning understanding of cognitive science changed how you think about political argumentation?
I would love to hear your thoughts.
(Next week I will introduce the second installment of Chapter 8, which looks at stories as a form of argument.)
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
The limitations of rationality
The word "deliberate" in the question made me think of a jury deliberating. They use their reason to deliberate about the facts and come up with a verdict. But that is a very contained world.
Rationality is fine as far as it goes, but every logical argument starts with a set of premises. Therefore your conclusions are only as good as your premises. The death penalty is an interesting moral issue. Catholics argue from the Bible that the death penalty is morally wrong. Fundamentalist Protestants argue from the Bible that the death penalty is morally correct. I'm assuming that the Bibles they use are fundamentally similar. So what gives?
We have to acknowledge that there is more than one way of knowing about the world. Rationality is one, of course, but there is also the feeling level and perception, both of which can vary with our emotional state. The world is just too big to figure out. Therefore every concept about the world is incomplete and therefore not true. But we need some sort of shorthand, some way of quickly dealing with the situations that come up in daily life. Even though Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativity, on our level it works just fine. So in our daily lives we walk around with a concept of how the world is, because a fundamental need of all people is to know how they fit into the moral order, i.e. what their place in the cosmos is.
It's not just a matter of how the world works, but it's also a matter of how it should work. The problem is that we have no perfect models except for the ones in our imagination. Heaven is supposed to be the ideal place, but nobody on earth can demonstrate that it exists or even describe it. We can't even agree on what constitutes happiness, even though everybody is searching for it.
We live in a Christian culture that believes in revealed truth. The truth is what it is, and you either believe it and are saved or you don't. That fits in with the conservative worldview that authorities must be obeyed, because they embody the truth, so if you want to be "saved" you'd better obey them. Not only that, but you'd better beware of people who try to change your mind, because they will try to lead you away from the truth.
I think progressives tend to be people who value experience, that is, they want to discover the truth for themselves. It's not what the authority says that counts, it's what I can validate for myself. In this type of framework mistakes are learning opportunities rather than tragedies, and science is not a threat.
So I guess what I'm getting to in all my rambling here is that knowledge is much more than rationality, so if you try to argue solely on the basis of rationality you will fail. In fact the person you are talking to may suspect you of trying to trick them with clever arguments. Mr. Bush famously relies on his "gut", which explains many of the things he does. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that there is nothing wrong with appealing to the parts of people beyond the rational mind, because it's a part of the way we humans view the world. We make assumptions--e.g. people are basically good or basically bad and it's off to the races.
Maybe the first step is just to convince people, esp conservatives, that it's OK to question their assumptions; the sky won't fall, though to a very rigid person it can often feel that way. Address their fears head on. For instance, conservatives believe that liberals want to "surrender" to "the terrorists". But that doesn't make any sense at all, and it's time for people to realize that.
Off topic, but just a response to part of your post
You said:
"Catholics argue from the Bible that the death penalty is morally wrong. Fundamentalist Protestants argue from the Bible that the death penalty is morally correct. I'm assuming that the Bibles they use are fundamentally similar. So what gives?"
It's a matter of which Testament they focus upon. There are a lot of progressive evangelicals out there who aren't Catholic and also preach the same message of forgiveness and love. They also happen to be those who focus more on the words of Jesus in the New Testament. The fundamentalist right-wingers tend to forget about Jesus and focus on a whole lot of stuff that happened before him and is outlined in the Old Testament. Oh, sure, they believe in Jesus, but they believe the only way to follow him is to follow the Old Testament word for word. Well, except maybe for that pesky part about shellfish...how can ya eat in New Orleans without having mudbugs?
The question I've always had is this: Is it because they focus more on the Old Testament that they have their conservative worldview, or is it because they have a conservative worldview that they focus so much on the Old Testament?
Worth thinking about, and maybe discussing in another topic?
Well
I thought about that after I wrote it...seems kind of obvious the chicken did NOT come before the egg. After all, if one person reads something and it looks one way to them, and another person reads the same thing and looks at it in a totally different manner, it would seem to indicate that the difference is caused by the different worldview.
rationalism as foundation for arguments?
Hi Joe,
WRT "How does the argument frame compare with the rationalist approach?"
As a hopeless policy rationalist, it's always very difficult for me to get away from rational approaches to policy analysis. Nevertheless I find the work on cognitive framing to be very convincing (and rational) indeed, and so my participation here is an attempt to better integrate a conscious awareness of framing dynamics in my own arguments.
I think I have an "instinct" for arguments, in the sense that my thoughts uniformly proceed from my values, and I seek to find ways to express those values in ways that speak to commonplace frames (even before I had a name for "commonplace frames"). What this chapter offers me is a more structured way of thinking about what I'm already trying to do. (And, frankly, repetition is really important in order to remember all the elements of this structure. There is a whole lot of taxonomy going on here, and unless one creates strong contextual associations to retrieve it all, it almost cries out for artificial mnemonics to pull it all out, like "ROY G. BIV" for the order of colors in a rainbow, or Every Good Boy Does Fine for the lines on a treble music staff.)
In any case, I think that rational analysis remains important as a foundation for making good arguments. It's just that one needs to apply rational though to more than just the causal-theory aspects of policy, and add these other angles on argument frames to the rational analysis.
Perhaps it's not so much a rejection or replacement of policy rationalism so much as an extension of rational analysis to a broader range of frames involved in an argument context.
Can we devise a set of exercises, similar to the analysis of the Obama argument above, that we can use to examine our own pet arguments? The more one goes through a process of cataloging what we are doing (and what others are doing), the better we will get at it.
It may be that this can be done more efficiently in a live workshop setting, but perhaps there is still a way we can accomplish something useful remotely/online. Practice makes perfect, and what we are trying to do is develop our cognitive skill set in the area of cognitive framing.
What tools has cognitive science identified as practical measures for building these skills?
Perhaps we should just offer a bunch of our arguments here, to see if we can identify the moral values, fundamental principles, issue frames, commonplace frames and inferences in arguments we are familiar with. But that sounds a lot like homework, which is an off-putting frame for most people. ;-)
How can we make it fun, too?
Did someone say homework?
Hi, Dano & Joe,
This is my weakest chapter and a little homework might be helpful.
an example with health care.
an example with health care.
I find this section difficult to follow.
I tend to think of people having values, that they apply to issues and then create policies.
I agree it would be a good exercise to look at a couple of issues and analyze them. Work them back to the values, etc. that are involved. I just received an email from the Obama campaign, it had a video clip related to his health care plan/policy. The video has him telling a story of a family that's struggling with the cost of health insurance.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eo07GYxYNSQ";>
</param><param name="wmode" value="transparent">
</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eo07GYxYNSQ"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">
</embed>
</object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo07GYxYNSQ
Telling and showing the story personalizes the issue.
Values:
empathy - the video tries to elicit empathy for the people that are struggling with high heath care costs.
efficiency - the policy will make the system more efficient.
self-interest - you'll save money.
Fundamental Principle: ?
Issue: Health Care
Common place frame: ?
Inference: ?
Shouldn't Policy be one of the headings?
Policy: Change to a universal health care system, reduce waste,
A side by side comparison of other candidates policies for health care and how they made their arguments would be interesting. many of their speeches are on youtube.
Another aspect of an argument is to give an insight into the progressive values involved. In Barack Obama's 2004 speech to the Democratic convention, he talked about cynicism and hope. He gave insights into the nature of hope, saying, "I'm not talking about blind optimism here, or blind ignorance." It helps people feel that they are growing. how does that fit into this analysis framework?
Exercise in Preparation
Hi edwinrutsch and cwatts,
Thank you for the suggested sources for an exercise. I have been thinking about how to prepare something useful in addition to the content of Ch. 8 to help develop our abilities to create effective arguments. At the same time, I have been analyzing the arguments in Bush's climate proposal in his speech about international development from yesterday.
Later today I plan to publish a response to his speech that includes an analysis of his argument, which I will link to as a new comment here when it is ready. (It will also be in the RN blog section.)
At the same time, I am incorporating some new analysis into the Thinking Points discussion for next week based on this work. The culmination of this effort will be my first attempt to prepare another example to help clarify how this procedure works that (hopefully) will give additional insights into how argument frames work.
In the meantime, please feel free to check out Bush's speech ahead of time and see if you can figure out what his central argument is and how it works. (Hint: It is a story that builds throughout the speech with several repetitions to reinforce its primary theme)
Here is the link to his speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-9.html
I look forward to discussing this with you when it is ready. Thanks for your patience.
Warm regards,
Joe
A video clip
Hi Jo
I have attempted to create a political advert in Australia which embodies all that you talk about - I'd really appreciate advice on how to improve it for the upcoming election in a few months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoqU1S88xs
This is my analysis:
specifically:
Moral premise: giving tax breaks to the multibillionaires whilst cutting health funds from our public health system is immoral.
Values: It is only fair that our nation's money is allocated according to need. Empathy for those in need.
Narrative: The conservative government is siding with the big business elites at the cost of average Australians.
Counterarguments: None?
Commonplace frame: Conservatives side with the rich at the expense of average Australians.
Surface frame: Elites - a link to the narrative?
I'd greatly appreciate your advice on improving the clip framing wise.
Thanks
dd
-------
http://connectthroughvalues.com
Sample Argument Critique
Hi All,
I have just posted on the RN blog for today, a piece called "Bush's Trade Barrier to Climate Success." Please look it over for an example of an argument critique. I will go into more depth for the discussion next week.
You can also come recommend it on Daily Kos if you're a member!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/1/114237/1782
distraction and juxtaposition
- Forgive me for cross-posting on two blogs here at the same time, but I just replied to your analysis on the RN blog, and figured I ought to include it in this thread as well.
-----
Even after pondering your detailed dissection of this speech, I didn't immediately get what was going on. After a while I think I may have figured it out.
This speech wasn't even about energy/climate at all! It's primarily about international trade, especially the conservative agenda of "free" trade which isn't really free in the first place if you consider the contents of a typical bilateral agreement between the US and other countries, etc., etc.
The climate stuff was hardly anything more than a convenient buzz topic to paste on top of that agenda, in order to "front" for that agenda. It's a clumsy juxtaposition, but woven together with some clever rhetorical safety pins and chewing gum.
The disconnect here is that the two issues have very little to do with one another other than both being "global issues" of a sort. From a policy substance point of view this is just a ventriloquist act.
This seems to be the rhetorical strategy of the current administration in particular: start with an agenda you want to promote, find popular buzz of the moment that everyone can agree on, find whatever slim connections you can to allow the latter to front for the former, saute for 3 minutes and serve hot (air). (Gee, I almost hit a typo: I typed "swerve" - then I almost left it...).
This is hardly even about "framing"any more - it's about misdirection, rhetorical sleight of hand, and "staying on topic" with one's agenda and the public buzz of the moment simultaneously.
This is even more condescending than the Leo Strauss inspired "public myth" process: it doesn't even try to be coherent or logical (in fact the less coherent and logical the easier it is to lead people down your desired path, because they hear what seems to be arguments being made when in fact they are hearing a bunch of disconnected statements that don't really fit together).
This speech is astoundingly Orwellian in how far it goes beyond "framing" to presenting incoherence with the veneer of coherence. When you are that incoherent, you can say just about anything you want and attach it to whatever will get people's emotional responses going. The emotional responses distract from the logical incoherence, and then you can slip the hooks to your desired agendas in the cognitive back door. I think they learned this from Sean Hannity.
I think these guys are way beyond the framing strategy in their speechwriting. So, my suggestion to you now is: don't get stuck in the "framing" frame! Apply that power of cognitive science to rhetorical tactics in addition to the framing strategies you've already made tremendous progress in understanding. These guys are just pulling stuff out of their butts now, in a desperate attempt to finesse public opinion. The scary thing is, it might just work unless we can pull off the wool that they're pulling over the public's eyes.
New! Wow! A Request for Homework!
Hi dano and cwatts,
It is inspiring to hear that you have not only followed this discussion for three months, but now you are asking for homework! Teachers, eat your hearts out....kidding, of course.
I think it is an excellent idea to develop some exercises to help out with arguments (and many other topics discussed earlier). This morning I had a conversation with our new Senior Fellow, Eric Haas, who has experience and enthusiasm for education. We are going to put our heads together to see how we can create worthwhile exercises to promote these concepts.
In the meantime, perhaps it would help to look at some arguments in the daily news. If anyone has a current issue that they would like to share, just link us to the article (or a political speech) and we can explore the argument(s) presented in it.
This should be fun!
Joe