16
Argumentation in
Government and Politics
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
public sphere, p. 258
public screen, p. 258
political claims, p. 259
committee hearings, p. 262
issue and image, p. 269
the people, p. 271
the public, p. 271
media, p. 273
political debates, p. 274
Political argumentation is the oldest recorded argumentation sphere. It can be
found in the ancient myths of the Babylonian king Gilgamesh, the Homeric
debates of the Iliad and the Odyssey, ancient Chinese records, and the Old
Testament record of the ancient Jews. One modern form of political argumentation has
taken its name from an Old Testament prophet: the Jeremiad. If you could penetrate
fully to the earliest actions of our species, you would probably find that political dis-
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 257 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 257 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
258 PART 3 Applications
to influence the policy decisions of a political community. This argumentation produces
“consequences that are widespread and enduring; and affect persons other than oneself
for good or evil” (Bitzer 230–231).
THE NATURE OF POLITICAL ARGUMENTATION
on the public screen has shifted participation away from the top-down constraints seen
in the traditional public sphere to areas of virtual interest, such as information dissemina-
tion, increased publicity, and virtual venues for dissent.
Whether political argumentation is characteristic of the public sphere, the public
screen, or both, it can be further defined by examining its claims, its content, its develop-
ment, and its refutation.
The Claims of Political Argumentation
In Chapter 5 , we identified three kinds of claims—factual, value, and policy. One of the
defining characteristics of political argument is that it always aims at policy. A lawyer
may argue the factual claim that a chemical spill was harmful to a client and subsequently
The Content of Political Claims
When Aristotle referred to the relatively simple society of ancient Greece, he defined five
general categories of political argumentation that are still important today: (1) finance,
(2) war and peace, (3) national defense, (4) imports and exports, and (5) the framing of
laws (53). Finance refers to issues emerging from consideration of fiscal and monetary
policies. War and peace includes all of our foreign policy and national defense programs.
Imports and exports suggest the full range of issues arising from interstate and foreign
commerce—whether free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) or the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) are beneficial
to the U.S. economy. The framing of laws ranges from modification of the Constitution
to statutory revisions. Legislatures must set policies as general as legal rights for women
and as specific as the use of “low fat,” “fat free,” or “diet” labels on food.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 258 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 258 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 259
Equal rights for women and informative food labels are good examples of the degree
to which the content of political claims has expanded. Decisions such as these and many
others that would have been personal then are political today. We have reached the place
in our complex society where every policy question is potentially political.
Political argumentation is, as J. Robert Cox says, “a normative sphere.” That is, it
is not defined by a specific set of claims with which it deals. Rather, the participants in
political argumentation generate reasons “for a course of action and in interpreting the
consequences of their decision . . . invoke a notion of ‘the public’” (131). There is always
implied in argumentation the idea that its policy claims are designed for the common
good of some social collective that we call the public. The usefulness of such public policy
is determined by the immediate needs of the community. Should local communities censor
cable television? Should the federal government regulate airline prices? Should the United
The Development of Political Claims
Initially, political claims are vague. They become more specific as argumentation develops.
No court of law would tolerate a claim as unclearly stated as most political claims initially
are, and no scientists could proceed without a firm statement of a hypothesis. Yet, most po-
litical claims begin the argumentative process in a very general form (Cobb and Elder 400):
These are examples of claims with which government agencies usually begin. They repre-
sent (as we noted in Chapter 5 ) the recognition of a problem, a “feeling of doubt.” Fre-
quently, they are almost issueless because they are claims with which everyone will agree.
However, as public bodies examine these claims and interest groups argue them, they
become more specific. To become a working policy, the claim must become more specific.
Take the reading example. Virtually, no one in Denver would object to improving the
reading level of children. But how? At what cost? What will the new policy replace? And
how will improvement be measured? The answers proposed to these questions make the
policy more specific and more controversial. Compare these two claims:
1. The reading level of children in Denver should be improved.
2. With funds now used for the education of children with disabilities, the Denver school
board should hire 50 reading specialists to provide individualized reading programs
for third grade students.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 259 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 259 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
260 PART 3 Applications
Issues Emerge as Claims Become More Clearly Phrased. Some people, even those who
want the reading ability improved, will object to taking funds away from children with
disabilities. They may argue that the money should come from other sources or new
taxes, and a whole host of issues will emerge. Other people will argue that direct atten-
tion to reading is not the best way to improve reading. Rather, reading instruction should
Claims and Issues Will Change as Argumentation Emerges. Policies need the widest possi-
ble consensus of the members of the affected group. Therefore, claims are often amended
to protect them from possible refutation. So, a school board may propose that social
Most Claims Do Not Become Policy, and Most That Do Are Noncontroversial. Many in-
terest groups expend great amounts of money and time researching and arguing policy
claims, yet most policy claims never become policy. Even those policy claims that become
legislative bills have a high rejection rate. More than 20,000 bills are proposed each ses-
sion to the U.S. Congress, yet less than 6% of them ever become law. Of those bills that
pass, two-thirds are supported by both major parties (Matthews and Stimson 6–7).
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act . This law, along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 , was pushed through by the 111th U.S. Congress and the Obama administra-
tion. Health care has long been a controversial issue in the United States. Supporters
of reform argue that the United States should join the ranks of other socioeconomi-
cally comparable nations in ensuring availability of health care to all citizens, while
opponents have argued that health care is not an appropriate concern for the federal
government. Previous attempts at reform had failed, despite evidence of broad public
support. The controversial legislation passed in 2010 improved insurance coverage for
those with pre-existing medical conditions, expanded access to care for over 30 million
Americans, and reduced the long-term costs of the United States health care system.
Although the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate at the time of the votes,
both bills required multiple changes in their original wording to get the votes necessary
to pass them.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 260 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 260 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 261
Perhaps in part because of this controversial legislation, the House switched to a
Republican majority and the Democratic majority in the Senate was dramatically reduced
in the election of 2010. Members of the Tea Party Caucus, Republicans who swept into
The legislative process has more than a dozen points in committee and floor action
where legislation may be delayed or defeated (Wise 22). The political party system, the
presidential veto, and outside pressure all serve to make most political claims develop
through continual cooperative modification until a consensus is reached.
Perhaps, this is one reason why moderation and middle-of-the-road options tend to
be preferred by many Americans. For example, Gallup polls from 1992 to 2008 have
found remarkable ideological consistency among the U.S. electorate, with more Americans
Politicians emphasize their ability to contribute to consensus building whenever pos-
sible. The website of long-time Senator Pete Domenici (R–New Mexico), who retired in
2009 following six terms as a United States Senator from New Mexico, the longest tenure
in his state’s history, included a list of complimentary statements referring to his consen-
sus building ability, many from members of the Democratic party. For example,
He is a Republican and a strong Republican, but in the end, to govern, it seems
to me, . . . to govern, you have to somehow work in toward the center. And
that’s been his strength. That’s basically where he is on the political spectrum
That “Politics is the art of the possible” is nowhere clearer than in the history of the U.S.
House and Senate.
To say that cooperative modification to consensus is the nature of political argumen-
tation is not to maintain that there are no issues, no debates. The modifications necessary
to consensus are discovered when issues are revealed in debate. The issues are likely to be
over modifications of policy, but issues are there nonetheless.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 261 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 261 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
262 PART 3 Applications
ARGUMENTATION IN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Even in political campaigns, where conflict would seem most likely, disagreements are
more likely to be over the degree or nature of a proposition than over a direct yes or no.
On health care, taxes, foreign policy, or environmental protection, for instance, disagree-
ments are over the degree of governmental action. In political campaigns, a diverse elec-
torate usually makes it difficult for a politician with an absolutist position to win.
The approval in 1999 of the final installment of the $1.8 trillion annual budget was
supported in the House with a 196 to 135 vote and with a vote of 74 to 24 in the Senate.
The 74 votes in the Senate were evidence of bipartisan effort, with 42 Republicans and
32 Democrats supporting the bill. It was praised by both Republican and Democratic
congressional leaders and President Clinton. But to get the agreement, the budget had to
include a number of compromises such as a 0.38 across-the-board budget cut, a one-day
delay in the September military payday, some “accounting gimmicks,” and some tax cred-
its for research and development (Toedtman; Pianin).
Argumentation in Committee Hearings
In recent years, people have been able to see firsthand how committee hearings function.
Segments have been shown on television, particularly on C-SPAN. The most dramatic,
such as the hearings on the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco,
Texas; the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over the appointment of Judge
Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and the charges of sexual harassment against him
by Professor Anita Hill; the 1995 congressional investigations of the Ruby Ridge, Idaho,
11-day standoff between federal agents and white separatist Randy Weaver; and the 1998
Involving highly controversial charges about the actions of governmental personnel,
they provided extensive examples of how refutation can function in committee hearings.
The same principles apply to thousands of other hearings in Congress, state legislatures,
and city and county government. Committee hearings are vital decision making scenes
where the claims of argumentation are modified through debate.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 262 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 262 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 263
During the ninety-sixth Congress, the House Appropriations Committee and its sub-
committees “held 720 days of hearings, took testimony from 10,125 witnesses, published
225 volumes of hearings that comprised 202,767 printed pages” (Davidson and Oleszek
220). Committee hearings offer an opportunity to get the input of society on the scope of
laws. Interested individuals, groups, businesses, and the like discuss what the law ought
Characteristics of Hearings
Hearings are characterized by the need to convert solutions into law to develop and focus
on a record that will justify the action taken. Argumentation in this setting involves the
legal questioning format and telling good stories.
Hearings involve controversy over policy. Controversy leads to debate that is blunted
because claims are made through a questioning process. This process resembles the type
Using the Record in Hearings
licited) of the four presidents of the health organizations. Mitchell told him that he would
change his mind about the seriousness of the problem if he read that testimony (Boynton,
“When Senators” 143).
Focus for the Record in Hearings
In most hearings (the Ruby Ridge, Waco, Thomas, and Clinton impeachment hearings are
exceptions), there is little disagreement among the members of the committee. Those who
serve on committees generally agree on the basic direction of legislation. Everyone on the
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 263 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 263 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
264 PART 3 Applications
Dennis Jaehne illustrates this restriction on arguments of wilderness groups in the
administrative appeals of Forest Service implementation decisions. The conflict he ob-
served between the Utah Wilderness Association and the Forest Service involved a basic
value disagreement “between the idealistic concept of preserving land in its ‘natural’ state
and the pragmatic concept of protecting land in . . . administrative rules and regula-
tions” (496). However, in the cases he studied, the Utah Wilderness Association became
The Forms of Argumentation in Committee Hearings
The questioning format that produces a focused record of testimony works from spe-
cific forms of refutation. G. R. Boynton has identified four main questions that are used
(“When Senators” 145–147). They are based on the record and, although questions, serve
to refute the testimony of a witness.
1. The questioner reminds the witness of what he or she has said, then notes someone
else’s countertestimony and asks how the witness would answer the objections. The ex-
2. The same line of questioning may be used with opponents. This form looks very
much like the first, despite the fact that it is addressed to hostile, rather than friendly,
witnesses. Boynton gives the example of a Department of Energy witness who said that
installing scrubbers on old power plants would be too expensive. Senator Mitchell noted
that another witness had testified that the Germans had installed scrubbers that cost only
$100 per kilowatt hour. What would they cost in this country, he asked, and why would
they be more costly than in Germany? (“When Senators” 146).
3. The questioner reminds the witness of what he or she has said but claims to have
counterknowledge and asks the witness to justify his or her position. This is a simple vari-
ation on the second form except that the questioner uses his or her credibility rather than
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 264 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 264 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
4. The questioner compares what the witness said at this hearing with earlier statements
or actions and asks the witness to justify the discrepancy. Inconsistency, as we have dis-
cussed in Chapter 5 , is a serious charge. Some believe it is the most powerful because it
uses one’s own arguments (or actions) against one’s position. In the Clean Air Act hear-
ings, Senator George Mitchell argued to the auto industry representatives:
Telling Good Stories
G. R. Boynton’s examination of the Senate Agricultural Committee hearings illustrates
that all this building of a record, focus, and refutation can be put in a narrative argument:
The “good story” told in the hearings of the Senate Agriculture Committee is “a” story. The
individual narrative accounts are bits and pieces of this larger story. They do not stand alone.
You cannot understand any one of these stories without understanding the larger story of
which each is a part. An important role for the narratives is carrying the cognitive complexity
which is the “good story.” (“Telling” 437)
In a situation such as the Clarence Thomas hearings, the story is primarily about the
credibility of a person. So, the day after Hill and Thomas testified, their supporters came
forward to confirm their statements. The New York Times headlined: “PARADE OF
WITNESSES SUPPORT HILL’S STORY, THOMAS’S INTEGRITY.” Friends of Anita
Hill affirmed that as long ago as 10 years earlier, she had mentioned the sexual harass-
ment to them. These bits of testimony supported and became a part of her story. In the
ARGUMENTATION IN LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Committee hearings are a vital and time-consuming part of congressional action. They
serve to define a proposition from a more general question and to make that proposi-
tion (a bill) more immune to opposition. After a bill is drafted, it must pass both houses
of Congress and be approved by the president (or overridden by the president’s veto). In
266 PART 3 Applications
addition, public opinion, spurred on by specific events, special interest groups, and some-
times legal action can influence what will happen.
Legislative Argument Is Usually Not Confrontational
You will recall from Chapter 10 that refutation should not be seen as an attack on an
opponent to win a decisive victory. Nowhere is this principle more true than in the legis-
lative process. It is a reflection of what has been called the first cardinal rule of politics:
“Don’t make enemies you don’t need to make” (Dowd). More than that, however, an
important value of the legislative process is majoritarianism. Sponsors of legislation try
to get the greatest support that they can. They want a significant majority. The larger the
better. Noncontroversial legislation is the ideal.
We need to pass this bill to deal with the problem of acid rain. The chief sponsors of the bill
have understandably, considering the problems in their New England states, emphasized acid
rain. However, in the Middle West and West, ambient air quality is of greater concern. Because
of the seriousness of that problem, I support the amendment to the Clean Air Act that would
require modifications for ambient sulfur dioxides, sulfate, and particulate standards.
Legislative Argument Is Usually Not Personal
We have noted that much legislation depends on as large a majority as possible. Such
majoritarianism is important because larger majorities provide political protection. If a
legislator can say that the law was supported by most Republicans and Democrats, its
supporters are less vulnerable to the charge that they are “too liberal” or “too conserva-
tive.” In addition, the tradition of treating one another without personal rancor is a part
of the American legislative tradition.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 266 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 266 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 267
The Amendment Process as Argumentation
The amending process has always been active in committees. When a bill came to the
floor of the House or Senate, amendments were usually extensions of committee hear-
ings. However, in recent years, the amendment process has been used more as a basis
of refutation. Former Arizona Congressman Morris Udall noted a few years ago that
the House of Representatives has become a “fast breeder reactor. . . . Every morning
when I come to my office, I find that there are twenty more amendments. We dispose
of twenty or twenty-five amendments and it breeds twenty more amendments” (Keefe
and Ogul 208).
A favorite gambit in attacking a bill is to “perfect” or amend it to death. Under this plan,
amendment after amendment is submitted to the bill, ostensibly to make it a “better” bill.
With each amendment a new group can be antagonized and brought into opposition to the
bill. Nor is it very difficult to make a bill unworkable, even ridiculous. Thus the president of
the Illinois Retail Merchants Association succeeded in getting a committee in the Illinois House
Argumentation Has an Important Credibility Function
Although debate is important to a democratic society and refutation is central to it, floor
debate has limited influence on legislation. A well-developed argument, or a new way of
looking at an issue that strikes at the center of a policy, can influence undecided members.
Mostly, however, floor debates, like committee hearings, are oriented to establishing a
record. Speakers say what they say in supporting or refuting arguments to demonstrate
Perhaps more important than building a record or influencing a few fence sitters
to move one way or another is a frequently overlooked credibility function of floor
debate:
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 267 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 267 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
268 PART 3 Applications
Relations between Legislature and the Executive
In recent years, the federal government has been characterized by what has been called
“divided government,” where the Congress is controlled by one party whereas the presi-
dent is from another. In the 50 years between 1950 and 2003, a Democrat was president
In such situations, debate can be quite vigorous and even acrimonious. The president
or governor has a veto that is difficult to override. So, even when the opposition has a
majority in the legislative branch, its power is curbed. Some presidents (Harry S. Truman
holds the record with 250) earned reputations for their frequent vetoes (Keefe and Ogul
329). The debate between a hostile majority in Congress and the president increases as an
election nears.
During much of the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a debate
concerning whether the United States was in a recession and what to do to prevent fur-
ther economic problems. Political progressives and other opponents of the president used
this discussion to highlight what they viewed as presidential incompetence. For example,
Think Progress posted the following:
Following is a portion of the transcript from President Bush’s speech in response to the
recession charges.
Not surprisingly, Democrats found Bush’s recommendation for stabilizing the economy
by going shopping inadequate.
As 2007 drew to a close, huge waves of foreclosures on home loans hit the U.S.
economy. The Washington Post reported that regardless of whether the country was ex-
periencing a recession, something needed to be done about the rash of mortgage foreclos-
ures (Cho and Irwin). When Bush proposed managing the crisis with a voluntary freeze by
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 268 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 268 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401