CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 269
such as Citigroup. The required five-year freeze represented a compromise between bank-
ing regulators, who argued for seven years, and mortgage firms, who argued for either
one or two years. Of course, this did not end the debate. Some, such as Senator Hillary
As we noted earlier, political arguments focus on policy. They begin with fact claims
(such as those made in the New York Times ), then incorporate values into the fact claims
to justify a particular policy. In this case, the issues began with a definition: Is this a reces-
sion? They also involved process: Are economic conditions getting worse or better? They
dealt with credibility: Is the president uninterested in the poor and middle class? Do the
Democrats actually want to solve the problem or simply make political points? Does the
issue threaten the country’s international credibility? Value issues were actively involved:
Is the suffering serious? Will high rates of mortgage foreclosures increase economic in-
Eventually, some compromises were worked out between Congress and the admin-
istration. The lesson to be learned from observing this process is that argumentation is
a complex problem because single issues have implications on a wide variety of claims
along with a host of other apparently unrelated issues (e.g., limits on the military budget
and damage to foreign investment) linked to these policy decisions. Political debate in-
volves party politics, public opinion, the media, and the responsibilities of government.
ARGUMENTATION IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
A political campaign is a complex mixture of activities. It includes speeches, debates,
mailings, television and radio ads, sound bites for the media, person-to-person campaign-
Campaigns Involve Issues and Images
All argumentation in the political sphere has, hidden in its attention to policy questions,
an element of the personal: is this person (or party) a fit representative of his or her con-
stituents? This dual emphasis on issue and image, present throughout the legislative proc-
ess, becomes increasingly important as campaign and election time nears. The process
270 PART 3 Applications
described earlier of “building a record” becomes more focused on how that record will
influence voters.
Some argue that image takes over and the issues are pushed aside by the image con-
structed through short commercials and media sound bites. Even debates, they argue, em-
phasize the candidate’s image and play down the public policy issues. Says Lloyd Bitzer,
“the stuff of ordinary campaigns consists of arguments, position statements, testimonials,
commercials, and other materials relating to the prudence, good character, and right in-
tentions of the candidates—to the image. . . . Thus, discussion of issues . . . tends to be
subsumed under the discussion of images” (242–243).
It is natural that political campaigns should be seen as image centered. After all, the
central issue of every campaign is personal: Should the candidate be elected? Some studies
have shown that, in presidential and senate races, at least, “exposure to even small doses
of campaign advertising is a significant educational experience.” “We conclude,” say
Candidates are usually reluctant to attack an opponent directly with charges about
character. In 1999, when media sources began reporting that Governor George W. Bush
of Texas, the Republican front-runner for president, had used cocaine, his opponents
from both parties refused to comment or did little more than suggest that he clear up the
Another image problem that has to be contended within this era of heavily mediated
campaigns is the tendency of journalists to change “the story of the election from ‘who
should govern’ to ‘who can win’” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 38; Smith 295). The image
The decision of the electorate on the proposition: Should the candidate be elected?
looks like a simple question of image. It is not. It is influenced significantly by a can-
didate’s record and position on issues. Credibility may be more important in political
campaigns than in some other situations, but credibility is influenced by the arguments
and values an audience comes to associate with a candidate. Even negative ads have more
influence if the credibility of a candidate is linked to issues.
Campaign Arguments Are Linked to “The People”
A political campaign is based on an argumentative strategy. The strategy has to cast the
candidate as a leader who will achieve the public policy that the people want. Terms like
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 270 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 270 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 271
the people and the public are myths constructed by candidates to define the whole popu-
lation as embodying the candidate’s point of view (McGee). The biography on Senator
Frank Lautenberg’s (D–New Jersey) website demonstrates this strategy:
Senator Lautenberg has written landmark laws that are making a real difference in our lives.
He stood up to Big Tobacco and wrote the law to ban smoking on airplanes. He stood up to
the liquor industry and wrote the law to get more drunk drivers off our roads. Senator Lauten-
Such strategies can be seen in every campaign. Candidates defend their claims as de-
signed to support “the people,” and refute opponents’ claims as attacks on “the people.”
Even though “the people” is a campaign myth, it is an important base for the story that a
candidate must tell and maintain at the center of the campaign.
Telling the Right Story
Each campaign should add up to a convincing story of a candidate whose record shows,
and statements reinforce, that he or she is in tune with the people to provide a wise public
policy. Developing such a story has been transformed in many cases into “the speech”
where the same arguments, values, credibility, and even examples are used by a candi-
date throughout a campaign. Emphasis can be shifted; introductions or conclusions are
In 1992, Ross Perot was the most successful presidential candidate from an independ-
ent or third party since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He was a successful billionaire busi-
nessperson who had never run for office but had gained some fame through Ken Follett’s
book, commissioned by Perot. On Wings of Eagles was the story of Perot’s rescue of his
company’s hostages held in Iran at the same time that the government could not free the
American embassy hostages. Perot’s campaign was built around the use of half-hour info-
mercials where Perot used charts and interviews to tell his story.
Ross Perot’s story was of a man from a poor family who rose to be a leader in busi-
ness. He did this by applying the things he learned in his close-knit family. There he
learned that self-sacrifice and working for others, for community, was the way to make
things better, not only for others but also for the individual. In this way, he got things
done, as he did in Teheran and in business. He is no politician because he does not compli-
Maintaining the Story
The story does come under attack, and when that happens, a campaign must use
refutation to answer the charges and restore the story. George Bush and Bill Clinton,
272 PART 3 Applications
realizing that they had more to lose than gain, did not attempt to refute Ross Perot’s
story. However, after the election Perot was hurt badly, and his story began to come apart
when he debated Vice President Albert Gore on the NAFTA agreement in 1993. Gore
attacked Perot’s story that he would use the principles of self-sacrifice and community.
He pointed out, for instance, that the Perot family had a tariff-free airport in Texas that
they used to benefit themselves while denying the free trade advantages of NAFTA to
others. Perot was unable to refute such charges. His inability to maintain his story
undoubtedly contributed to his drop in popularity after the debate.
The strategy crafted by Frank Luntz responded to concerns that Republican candi-
dates, especially George W. Bush, were having difficulty maintaining their environmental
story. Luntz devoted an entire section to the issue of global warming. As we indicated in
Chapter 13 , the scientific community already had reached consensus that global warming
was occurring, that certain human activities were a significant cause, and that the effects on
society have been (and are expected to continue to be) largely negative. Scientific argument
has moved on to questions of how best to address this problem. Despite strong scientific
consensus, the George W. Bush administration consistently argued that global warming
was not a serious issue and opposed any regulation of emissions thought to be primarily
responsible for global warming. In fact, when the Environmental Protection Agency pro-
duced a report on the state of the environment, White House editors removed most of the
Frank Luntz offered a way to present a convincing story about global warming. He
urged Republicans to maintain control over the argument by emphasizing scientific un-
certainty: “voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the
scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are set-
tled their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to
continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate” (137). He
added that, although the Bush argument was out of line with the scientific consensus,
this could be overcome with effective communication. “The scientific debate is closing
[against us] but [it is] not yet closed,” wrote Luntz. “There is still a window of opportu-
nity to challenge the science” (138).
Politicians from presidents to city council members build a record through legislation
and public argumentation. It is combined, in the political campaign, with the candidate’s
credibility, policy claims, and values to sustain a reasonable story. Defending that story is
the central focus of political argumentation.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 272 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 272 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 273
Media and Political Argumentation
Media attention is very important to defending the story. The higher the office, the more
important it becomes. Many local races, such as city council or state legislature, get little
media attention unless something unusual happens in the campaign. Those campaigns are
usually tied to the coattails of a party or higher official, who does have media exposure,
and to neighborhood campaigning. But at the higher level of office seekers, there is a con-
tinual adaptation to media sources. Speeches and announcements are timed to make the
evening news and the morning newspaper. Beginning in 1992 when Bill Clinton went on
The Arsenio Hall Show and played the saxophone, it has become common for candidates
for president to appear on the talk shows of hosts such as Jay Leno, David Letterman, and
Oprah Winfrey. Candidates use such appearances to reinforce the story and to refute the
The press can also become an adversary, as when representatives of the press some-
times use what J. Michael Hogan calls “preemptive refutation” in debates. They attack
a candidate with a question he or she would rather not discuss. In 2008, Mitt Romney
was one of the Republican candidates for the presidency. Because he was a member of
the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), the “Mormon ques-
tion” played a large role in the campaign. Although the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy
was supposed to have taken care of the religion question in presidential politics, Romney
faced a different kind of religious question. Kennedy had successfully argued that he sup-
ported the separation of church and state and that his religious views would not control
his conduct while president. Romney’s conservative Republican constituency had spent
Successful political campaigns no longer rely primarily on traditional media to take
their argument to the public. In late 2007, all of the U.S. presidential candidates had their
own official web sites. Furthermore, there were numerous unofficial websites dedicated
to building up or tearing down various candidates. On December 6, 2007, for example,
a simple Google search for “presidential candidates website” came up with 314,000 hits.
In addition to traditional web sites, members of the public could “Face the candi-
dates on YouTube.” YouTube exemplifies the public screen discussed in Chapter 3 (under
postmodernism). For any candidate, viewers could watch numerous short videos, ranging
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 273 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 273 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
274 PART 3 Applications
Edwards! I trust you” to “Trust no one in government. They exist and live off the hard
work and backs of every working American” to “The Associated Press has just reported
that Dick Cheney will be dropped from the Ron Paul blimp this New Year’s Eve over
Times Square!” It is clear that the Internet plays an important role in political argumenta-
tion; just what that role is, however, remains in question.
The media at every level and of every kind pose a challenge for a campaigner who
wants to make any argument. Especially with traditional media, managers can control
the extent to which an argument gets covered. Although the Internet provides increased
access, that does not necessarily lead to a favorable political climate. We have already
noted the problem of local candidates in what are considered unimportant races. It is the
media sources that decide that the mayor’s race is important, but the second district city
Media not only controls what the story will be but may also construct a story for a
candidate. Kathleen Hall Jamieson points out that media reporters tell voters the prin-
ciples by which they should interpret the campaign. She found 15 principles, such as
“Candidates believe that symbols win more votes than substance” and “At the end of a
campaign those ahead in the polls adopt the motto: ‘No news is good news’” (163–164).
All of these principles, in one way or another, tend to portray the candidate as an actor
with no concern for issues, only the strategy for winning.
This discussion may seem too negative about the role of media. In a society that prizes
freedom of speech and the press, the media is certainly doing its job when it asks ques-
THE SPECIAL ROLE OF DEBATES
Increasingly, politics involves debates. There was a time not too many years ago when
political debates were rare. Incumbents would not debate their lesser known opponents
because they had nothing to gain. The first presidential debate was between two nonin-
Debate experts and others have examined these debates and found them less than
ideal. The general agreement is that they are not debates in the sense that candidates
directly confront, question, and refute one another. Rather, they are seen as “joint ap-
pearances” with minimum exchange between candidates. The Lincoln–Douglas Illinois
senatorial debates of 1858 are held up as models against which contemporary political
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 275
debates are judged negatively. However, as David Zarefsky has noted, those debates had
some of the characteristics we decry in contemporary political debates.
People believe that political debates will provide information about the candidates
and their stands on issues (Rowland and Voss 239). Campaign debates have greater at-
tendance or viewership than any other campaign messages (Jamieson and Birdsell 121).
The argumentation in these debates is determined by the diverse nature of the elector-
ate. Voters hold a variety of positions on issues, and candidates who expect to be success-
ful rarely take a strong stand on controversial issues.
REFUTATION IN THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN
Refutation Is Usually about Testing Proposals with Values
Favoring a controversial policy can damage a political candidate or officeholder. Although
eventually specific policies must be implemented, these usually come through compromise
so that the controversy is muted. Candidates, even when they argue for specific proposals,
make sure that they are linked to values that a strong majority of the decision makers hold.
Candidates usually argue from values they share with the public (Werling et al. 231).
But “the Devil is in the details” and so the specific proposals are difficult to argue. Bill
Clinton was able to make a strong value argument that health coverage should be guar-
anteed for all. But as the Clinton health plan emerged and was subjected to refutation on
the specifics of how it would work, it fell in popularity and was abandoned. Polls still
indicated that health was an important value for most Americans, but finding a plan and
Arguments against gun control are not in favor of violence, they are about how to
control it and claim that better law enforcement will control violence and gun control will
not. They will also argue on the basis of a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”
The questions abound in which values are the central concern of refutation. Most people
oppose abortion but accept it because they believe a woman’s right to the value of choice
is more important. Protecting the environment is a widely held value, but people argue
about how to do it without destroying financial security.
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 275 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 275 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
276 PART 3 Applications
Evidence Is Important in Refutation
In refuting the specific proposals or the attack on such proposals, campaigns generate a
surprising amount of evidence. A successful campaign will provide examples, statistics,
and testimony to support the value orientation of the campaign. There is considerable use
of evidence in speeches and debates.
Evidence used in political refutation can take many forms. A USA Today article
about George W. Bush’s tendency to deflect tough questions includes a series of ex-
amples. When asked about the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (which
had been used to justify invading Iraq), Bush responded by asking, “who could pos-
Refutation in local political campaigns also includes the use of evidence. Mike Joseph
wrote an article criticizing county commissioners of Centre County, Pennsylvania, for
supporting a sports facility that would increase local tax rates. Joseph used statistical
evidence to support his claim that the commissioners’ decision was not responsive to their
constituents. The “county commissioners split 2–1 in approving the allocation on Oct. 2,”
Credibility Is Significant in Refutation
In any political campaign, credibility is important because, as we have noted, the over-
arching proposition is about the candidate: Should this candidate be elected? Therefore,
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 276 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 276 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 16 Argumentation in Government and Politics 277
You can take your pick of issues where Republicans are seriously damaging this country: Iraq,
global warming, civil liberties. But I resent them most for how they’ve destroyed the American
spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power. It’s scare-mongering pure and simple,
and it is the only thing Republicans have left to offer.
Frank Luntz understood how essential it was for his clients to maintain credibility. In
the memo on environmental argument that we discussed earlier, he explained that “the
The Story Is Significant in Refutation
When we say the candidate must “restore the story crafted for the campaign,” we ac-
knowledge refutation as more than simply saying, “that’s wrong.” Each argument has a
place in the campaign. You will recall from Chapter 10 that one needs a posture for refu-
tation, a constructive base from which to refute the position of others. We also observed
that the framework of refutation that works in most situations follows these steps: State
the point to be refuted, state your claim relevant to the point, support your claim, and
state explicitly how your criticism undermines the overall position (the story) of those
Leave No Shot Unanswered
If the story of the campaign is to be sustained, then the dictum of Chris Matthews, televi-
sion political commentator and a former political aide with considerable inside experience
in the political campaign process, is worth remembering: “Leave no shot unanswered”
(117). Perhaps, no election represents this maxim so well as the election of 1988. In that
election, the George Bush campaign chose a strategy of devoting 50% of its efforts to “neg-
ative campaigning” or attacks on Michael Dukakis. It was late in the campaign when the
Dukakis campaign adopted a similar strategy. Republican strategist Roger Ailes had said,
“There are three things that get covered: visuals, attacks, and mistakes” (Bennett 129). The
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 277 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 277 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
Dukakis, virtually every political observer agrees, waited too long to respond. He
somehow believed these were superficial charges that voters would see through and con-
centrated on his own “positive” campaign. He was wrong. Some negative campaigning
backfires, but it always has to be refuted. Since that time, candidates may have passed up
a few possible responses, but, in general, they have left no shots unanswered.
Refutation by Inoculation
Refutation is usually thought of as something that takes place after a candidate has had a
story and the image it projects attacked. However, there is considerable evidence to show
that answering the argument before it is made can have a significant effect and even pre-
vent it from being used. Such a refutational strategy is called inoculation. It is a metaphor
Studies of a South Dakota senatorial race and the 1988 Bush–Dukakis presidential
election by Michael Pfau and Henry C. Kenski show that inoculation “deflects the specific
content of the attacks, and it reduces the likelihood that the political attacks will influ-
ence receiver voting intention. In addition, because inoculation precedes attack, it even
provides defenses against attacks that are launched late in the campaign” and therefore
are particularly difficult to refute (100).
CONCLUSION
Political argumentation is the oldest recorded argumentation sphere. It is the process of
using verbal and visual arguments to influence the policy decisions of a political commu-
nity. Political argumentation is characterized by the use of policy claims. The content of
those claims emphasizes finances, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports,
and the forming of laws, according to Aristotle, though those categories have expanded
meanings in modern times. In addition, many things that would have been considered
personal in other times are public now. Political claims begin in a vague form, but they be-
come more specific as argumentation about them develops. Claims and issues also change
as argumentation emerges. Most claims that are advanced do not become policy, and
most that do are noncontroversial.
The first of three major subspheres of political argumentation is committee hearings.
There, argumentation is characterized by applying legal practice. Arguments are developed
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 278 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 278 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
that will stand up to criticism.
In the second subsphere, legislative action, argumentation is usually nonconfronta-
tional. Under the influence of the value of majoritarianism, the objective is to get the
largest possible majority. Argumentation is usually not personal. The amendment process
serves as a kind of argumentation. Argumentation has an important credibility function
Debates have a special role in political campaigns. They are probably the single most
important campaign activity, despite frequent complaints that they do not involve exten-
sive attention to the issues. Debates reflect the mixed political condition in the country.
Refutation in a political campaign tends to be about testing proposals with values.
Evidence and credibility are important to refutation because they help to sustain the story
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
1. Attend a committee hearing of a campus or local government group. Write a short analysis of
the argumentation used there. To what extent does it reflect the principles of committee hear-
ings discussed in this chapter? What is your opinion of the quality of the hearings?
2. Select a current political issue that interests you. Using an internet search engine ( http://www.
thesearchenginelist.com ), first, identify Senators and Representatives who are involved in the
issue. Then, identify any legislation regarding the issue that passed within the past four years.
What compromises occurred between the legislation’s introduction and its passage? If no leg-
islation has been passed, at what stage has it been stopped? Have any of the Senators and
Representatives you identified proposed legislation? What has happened to the proposals?
How have the media been used in support or opposition to the proposal?
M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 279 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501M16_RIEK0596_08_SE_C16.indd Page 279 1/19/12 11:26 AM user-f501 F-401F-401