Progress Through Argument

            Simple lack of considerate dialogue and deliberation is at the root of many of today’s foremost issues. The very way people think about arguments divides them from one another. Meaningful progress requires compromise and understanding in argument. Instead, we take a warlike approach to argument with a winner and a loser, and no willingness to give validity to the other’s point of view. For as long as I’ve been old enough to pay attention, the news has been filled with such conflict, bias, and opinion. Every story seems to be polarizing, with each side neglecting the others thoughts and feelings towards an issue. Daily protests and riots occur to fight back against anything people disagree with. While protests are a healthy part of every democracy and society, too often participants never even give consideration to why others might feel differently about the issue at hand. Through better deliberation and argument, we can become more progressive and peaceful. 

            Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson describe the way western culture handles argument as “war”. “We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack” (Lakoff, Johnson). While this sounds like an extreme comparison, it actually fits very well. Humans are naturally competitive creatures, and in argument, like anything, we hate to lose. We actually hate losing so much that we will go as far as to abandon our true beliefs and opinions just to better position ourselves to win the argument. In doing so, we the fail at the very purpose of argument, for two groups to clash ideas to discover which hold up best. Both sides are actually on the same team, trying to come up with the best solutions. “Rather than an either/or proposition, argument is multiple and complex. An argument can be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable” (Jones 160). 

A recent headline from the New York Times read “In Major Defeat for Trump, Push to Repeal Health Law Fails”. This story reflects our society’s failures in deliberation and argument on several levels. The reporter’s word choice highlights the warlike nature of our arguments. With the notion that the failure of the law to pass was a “defeat” for President Trump, the reporter implies that there must be a winner and a loser of the argument over our nation’s healthcare plan, following George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s relation of argument to war. The truth is, until the president, congress, and the American people can have successful deliberation and considerate and open-minded argument, we will never come up with a solid plan that meets the needs of the people. The bill’s failure to pass through congress and become law further lends itself to Lakoff and Johnson’s claim. During the Barack Obama presidency, several attempts to pass what would become known as Obamacare failed, along with many other actions the president tried to take. Back then, the issue was mostly Democratic vs. Republican. The two political parties found themselves on opposite sides of the arguments and refused to consider the opposing party’s views, halting progress and important actions that would greatly help the American people. Unfortunately, today in Trumps presidency the conflict goes even deeper. Not only are the political parties pitted against one another, but a large number of Republicans who simply resent Trump and everything he does. They oppose any actions he tries to take, valuing their own personal desire to win over what is best for the majority.  If all these groups were able to operate beyond their personal feelings and resist their competitive nature, they could conduct healthy, productive arguments that allow the overall best ideas to prevail and ultimately pass laws that are best for the American people. 

Argument and deliberation when conducted with open-mindedness and the desire to reach the right resolution regardless of who’s idea it is, are important tools in many aspects of life. They allow ideas and opinions from different walks of life to compete and conclusions to be made that best address the issue at hand most universally. 

Works Cited

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?" Writing Spaces: 

            Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 1. N.p.: Parlor Press, 

            n.d. N. pag. Print.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. "Metaphors We Live By." (2003): n. pag. Web. 6 Apr. 2017.

McDonald, James. "I Agree, But..." Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. Ed. 

            Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 

            199-215. Print. 

Pear, Robert, Thomas Kaplan, and Maggie Haberman. "In Major Defeat for Trump, Push to 

            Repeal Health Law Fails." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2017. 

            Web. 9 Apr. 2017.

Logan Uranick