Opinion

Framing an argument vs. discussion

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

In the art of magic, intentionally misdirecting your attention so the magician can produce the effect he desires is an essential part of the process.

In political discourse, framing of the argument might be thought of in the same way. For those who seek to persuade others that their interpretation of the political issues is the right one, the skillful use of words is essential and those who are most skilled in framing the debate are more likely to have their views become accepted.

Those framing the political debate have a political philosophy that informs their argument. Framing the debate is a device to advance a particular position used in speeches and written arguments.

Political discussion involves people exchanging ideas usually in an informal way with the intent of gathering all of the pertinent facts, ideas and views available and using those to arrive at the best solution to the problem under discussion.

The greatest example of political discussion is the constitutional convention, a three-month long political discussion that gave us our Constitution. In today's polarized political world, discussion of important issues is a rare thing.

An awareness of some of the ways that political debate is framed is helpful in spotting the fallacies of an argument and being more objective. Some examples: making assertions such as; the fact is, the truth is, the key point is or, what is important is.

By accepting uncritically the author's assertion following any of the above statements, you are allowing him/her to frame the debate and lead you to the conclusion he/she wants you to arrive at. We should always question these assertions to see if they are valid. If someone says, for instance, the fact is --, we should ask, is that really a fact, or is it just his opinion?

Another method is selective disclosure. One political party might say, "We have expanded the safety net so that no one need live in dire poverty" but neglect to disclose that in so doing they have substantially increased the annual budget deficit and the national debt.

Since no one wants to see people going hungry or without adequate shelter or clothing, what is seen is the reduction in those conditions, a good thing, but what is not seen or immediately thought of is the increased debt.

Is there a better way of alleviating those conditions in the long run, such as establishing economic and tax policy that would grow the economy and increase jobs?

Another example is semantics. Using phrases such as a " just war" a "living wage," and an "equal shot at success" all sound appealing, but what are their real definitions and who makes that definition?

Feel-good phrases that are difficult to define are used by both sides to emotionalize an issue so people will identify with it and support it. I say it is better to use empiricism and ask; how much does a program cost? Is it cost effective? And what are its benefits using statistical analysis? But then I am reminded of a quote from Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." The manipulation of statistics by the government is so prevalent and skewed by political ideology that it is increasingly hard to believe what our own government tells us.

Framing the political argument is often about appealing to the emotions by engaging the empathetic and caring side of everyone. Most people want to be seen as caring and empathetic, but by making those the yardstick by which we determine what is good government policy we consistently institute programs that may satisfy us emotionally but in the long run either do little good or in fact exacerbate conditions that cry out for solutions which actually work.

A case in point is early childhood education. Study after study has found that the long-term benefits of early childhood education are nearly non-existent, yet we continue to pump billions of dollars into these programs because they show that we care.

The issue is emotionalized by saying that we must give every child an equal chance at educational success, but the facts tell us that it doesn't work.

Should we continue to spend money on this and other programs even though they are well intended so that we may feel good, or should we use empirical evidence to determine what actually works and eliminate programs that don't.

It is said that the closest thing to immortality on earth is a government program. Every program develops its own constituency and at least a small group who benefit from it, even if it is primarily those employed in its administration.

And so it becomes something of a make work jobs program that no politician wants to take the heat for discontinuing. That illustrates the problem of what is seen and what is not seen. What is seen, the loss of jobs by eliminating a program that is ineffective, and what is not seen, the freeing up of money that can be used more effectively.

Discussion of all of the important issues of the day is a good thing. Such things as the national budget and whether it should by law be balanced, immigration issues, the proper role of the national government in public education, health care that truly improves care, reduces cost and increases choice, military spending and the role of the U.S. on the world stage.

Where are the leaders of both political parties that are willing to lead the American people in a frank and honest discussion on these and other important issues and not just use the sophistry of framing the argument for partisan advantage?