Where Can We Argue?

The recent essay about economic inequality by Joseph E. Stiglitz is not the Nobel laureate's first contribution to Vanity Fair, that forum of Chardonnay sipping liberals (that I enjoy so well). Nor is Stiglitz's piece the first attempt to call attention to the issue of economic inequality. 


What makes the essay remarkable is its place in the larger debate about the escalating economic inequality in the US. 


Stiglitz provides a nice a primer on the issue, goes on to show just how intractable the issue has become, and then he demonstrates how problematic the consequences of growing economic inequality are. According to his essay, even the ultra-wealthy ought to be concerned. His evidence is based in clear historical examples and sound economic theory. It's a great essay.


Here's the problem: It's by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and it's in Vanity Fair.


One of the big writing challenges my composition students are working on this quarter is squaring rhetorical purpose and audience expectations. Last week the students decided that all of their essays this quarter will be focused on their investigation into the social and cultural impact of the internet. Two of their concerns going forward are 1) What do they want to say and 2) Who do they want to say it to.


I'm very impressed with the work my students are doing. 


For an issue as divisive as economic inequality, I'm a bit concerned about the ability of anyone - even a Nobel prize winning economist - to marshal evidence effectively enough to bring both sides of the debate to a constructive place.

I think the message of Stiglitz's essay is critically important, but I also belong to the group who agrees with him. Our side believes that economic inequality is a pressing issue, and the right is actively engaged in class warfare: limiting union rights, blaming the social safety net for state budget shortfalls, cutting the education budgets for at risk kids, moving jobs overseas, mechanizing manufacturing, holding onto corporate tax breaks, and keeping capital gains taxes out of the public coffers.

The wealthy have been working hard not to pay taxes, but now that budgets are short, they have decided that it's outrageous that we pay for teacher health care and provide lunch to poor school children.

And yeah, it is time to do something about it, but people reading the Stiglitz article in Vanity Fair already knew that.

Worse yet, if I want to change the mind of a person who, for example, supports cuts to public education, citing either Vanity Fair or Stiglitz isn't going to get me very far.

I was involved in an email exchange with some conservative thinkers recently. One person argued the following: It is less than fair that a wealthy parent who sends their children to private school must pay into the public school system. My reaction is that the benefits of public education are distributed across the social spectrum. But the person doesn't see those merits, or else they don't think they are substantial enough to maintain an equatable education system.

I tried to present my views, but imagine if I had replied, "But have you read Stiglitz essay in Vanity Fair?"

If you are unfamiliar with conservative thinkers, you might not anticipate the following, "Yes, I read it, and I am not surprised that the liberal media give that crackpot a voice."

You see, the people who agree with Stiglitz are happy to read such a nice article that confirms their worldview. Meanwhile, the people who disagree will be outraged when they read the article, and that will confirm their world view.

The same article in a different place would have been much more effective, but where is that other place? Dora and I were talking today, and we're pretty sure there isn't an outlet where people with different opinions can engage in a healthy debate about important issues. Maybe you know of one. A little help?

Cognitive Dissonance

When examining an argument, if the claim depends on the acceptance of two conflicting beliefs, there is a fundamental problem with the argument.  

On April Fool's Day the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed about union activities in Wisconsin. The piece suggested that "unions are now getting out the steel pipes for those who don't step lively to their cause."

As I read on, I found something wrong with that op-ed.

It opens with the claim that unions are threatening a boycott that endangers the livelihood of small business owners.
Then the piece says that union numbers are on the decline and don't have the clout they once had.

Putting both points into one op-ed exposes the problem with the current opposition to union rights.
Point A) Unions are strong, because they have numbers.
Point B) Unions are obsolete and weak, because workers no longer support them - no numbers.

No matter your stance on union rights, if you accept one of those scenarios, you must reject the other.
If you oppose union rights because you accept Point A and believe unions are too powerful, then you have to accept that you are challenging a large number of people who can vote, protest, and boycott to some effect.
If you oppose union rights because you believe Point B is true, then you don't have anything to worry about. Your opposition is weak.

Judging by the rhetoric in Wisconsin, many who oppose union rights accept point A. And they are understandably frustrated that the group they oppose is organized and powerful. But last time I checked, organizing people with similar interests was acceptable behavior. I think there's something in the Constitution protecting the rights of people who do just that.

If steel pipes do come out, that's a problem. But boycotts are a far cry from violence. There is nothing illegal or immoral when a group of people stop patronizing businesses because of a political belief.

I'm not saying that people should blindly accept union demands. Opposing unions is different than opposing union rights.  Unions are an interest group. Unions have an agenda: to get workers the most money the labor market will provide. And unions are pushy. Employers have to push back. In today's labor market, employers have the upper hand. So even if unions are strong, competent employers should be able to cut a nice deal.

Instead of entering a negotiation in which he had the upper hand, however, Governor Walker has tried, and to a certain extent succeeded in portraying union members as a drain on the system - the way Regan portrayed "welfare queens."
The problem is that union workers earn wages that were negotiated in the public sphere. We can object to how well they made out in those negotiations. We can investigate any shady dealings. We can be upset that the unions used connections and bargaining power so effectively.

But we shouldn't resort to passing laws that deny groups a voice at the table.

Bottom line: When the Wisconsin Republicans used the legislative process to limit citizens' rights to organize and act as a group, they violated one of their party's core principles. "Small Government" is not just about budgets; it's also about how laws affect lives.

You don't have to like unions. Hell, you can seek to undermine their influence, but if you use the government to cripple them because their interests are not in line with yours, you have failed to understand how a democracy functions.

And that is why we should examine our arguments for cognitive dissonance. 

Belittling Civic Participation?

Fox News is often too easy a punching bag, but this was something I had to post.
The head line "Shrieking Leftist Mob Shuts Down Town Hall Meeting in Wisconsin" is posted on the "Politics" portion of the Fox News Website. 

There's a link to the full story from (and I'm not making this up) RightNetwork.com.

The story is about a pair of YouTube videos (embedded below) from a Wauwatosa town hall with a Republican politicians. 

I know the left was harsh when Tea Party protesters used much of the same tactics while the health care reform debate was raging.

My question is this: Why would either side belittle the people who are engaged enough to attend public meetings and voice their opinions? 

These people are doing more than just voting. They are participating in democracy in the most active way they can. It takes time, energy, and thought to do so.  

Neither side of the political spectrum (nor their respective media outlets) should discourage such civic participation. 

That headline sprinkled with insults not only offends the targets, it offends anyone who believes in participative democracy.  

Stonewalling Takes Brickheadedness

It is odd having my home state in the news as much as it has been lately.

Overall, I have been impressed by the way Wisconsinites have conducted themselves.  They've treated this like a tough issue that deserves careful consideration.

For example, the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran is an editorial columnist on the right side of the spectrum. He doesn't like collective bargaining, and he has made that clear. And when someone from the Daily Kos misinterpreted McIlheran's argument, McIlherandid did not shy away from getting into the details. This is a complicated issue, and a real debate is not going to be sound-bite friendly.

Then there are the protesters and the counter-protesters. By all accounts, they are passionate yet reasonable people. 

Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Governor.He's presenting an argument to the people of Wisconsin (oh, and incidentally the nation - the man seems to be enjoying the attention) that the State Senators who are holding up the vote are on the verge of costing the state millions of dollars.

There some truth to that. If the State Senators don't return to Wisconsin, state money will be lost.

But the Governor's assertion would not hold up well as part of an essay submitted in my composition classroom.

His argument suggests that members of his opposition are the ones being overly-stubborn. A critical reader would need some evidence to support that.

Sadly for the Governor, the evidence suggests that he and his fellow hard-liners are the people refusing to compromise.

His opposition has offered to compromise on the financial issues. They don't, however, want to lose collective bargaining rights. I believe the thinking there is as follows: We are willing to give up pay and benefits when times are bad (now), but we want to retain the right to bargain so we can recoup those cuts when times get better (later).

The Governor has forced his opposition to give up a lot, and so far he has yielded nothing - and he has said he is unwilling to yield anything.

His assertion that a stubborn opposition has held up the process is problematic.  When one side is ready to compromise, while the other side refuses to do so, the label of stubborn is applied to the latter.

The Governor is the stubborn one here.  He sees this as a zero-sum game. That is an obtuse understanding of democracy, a view that is putting his state and his constituents at risk.

Michael Sandel on Democratic Debate

This is the video we watched in the class I'm TAing.  We're starting a unit on civic engagement.  Good stuff.

Duped

I recently re-posted a statistic on Facebook.  I thought it was a nice piece of persuasive evidence in a heated argument.  But it was actually a misleading set of figures.

I hate to admit this, but I was seduced by numbers that were too good to be true.  I should have known.  I should have looked into it, but like most people, I saw numbers that supported my argument and my blinders went up. I didn't need to think anymore because I had numbers on my side.

Let me explain. The labor issue in Wisconsin has got my attention (along with a few other people). I don't agree with the governor's position. So I couldn't help myself when I saw the following stat: "Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows: South Carolina - 50th, North Carolina - 49th, Georgia - 48th, Texas - 47th, Virginia - 44th. If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country. Let's keep it that way. Repost."

Doesn't that seem like great support for people who oppose the governor's plan?

The problem is that those stats are misleading.  They are not wrong, but they paint a picture that is very different from reality. Most Wisconsin universities don't require the SAT, so the in-state SAT participation rate is very low.  So the numbers can't be compared in a meaningful way.

I know that now, but only after Jason pointed out some problems with my evidence. I learned this because Jason was willing to engage in a real debate. He questioned evidence and looked at the bigger picture.

Wouldn't it be nice to see elected officials do the same?

Anyway, if a student presented my argument in class, I like to think I'd encourage them to take a more critical look at their evidence.  I should have examined where the data was coming from and who was presenting it.

The good news is that I have friends on Facebook who aren't afraid of debate and discord. I maintain relationships (albeit mostly digital ones) with people who will call me out when I step over the line.  


There should be at least two sides to every debate, and I hope to always know and respect people on the other side of each issue I argue. 

How We Don't Argue

This past summer I came home to the US after living abroad for six years.

It wasn't long after my return that I started to notice how divisive public discourse has become.  That was the primary motivation for making this blog about the rhetoric of current event debates.

I've become uncomfortable with the way major issues are presented to the public by both officials and experts. Everything has to be spun.  Outlets have to pick a demographic.  And people end up picking a side - listening to commentators that pander to one specific worldview.

We've seen scientists meddle with information in an effort to make their findings on climate change more 'understandable.'

We've seen blatant demagoguery in the health care debate. 

We've seen Glen Beck.

Despite all the trouble spots I worry over in American public discourse - despite my concern over the failure of cool heads, I think it is important to point out this:

It could be a hell of a lot worse.

Iranian lawmakers are calling for the execution of opposition leaders.

Hungary enacted a law restricting the media from reporting anything a government-appointed panel finds "unbalanced or immoral."

It seems increasingly dangerous for governments to take such harsh stances against dissenters.
The era of centralized powers restricting the freedom of their peoples is coming to an end, and I expect a few of the dying giants won't go without a fight.

In times such as these, it's nice to live in a society that values freedom of expression.  Our debates might not always be eloquent, critical, or informed - but at least there aren't any gunmen preventing such exchanges.

What Do You Mean We, Kemosabe?

I like to pay attention to the smaller words - prepositions, articles, and pronouns to be specific. I find these often-overlooked words can have tremendous impact on meaning.


My interest stems largely from experience teaching English as a second language. Try to explain the logic in the difference between 'look up' and 'look down on' to someone learning the language.

So after jumping on Congressman Paul Ryan for his misplaced article, I feel it's only right to turn that kind attention on my own choice of words. 

I decided to call this blog How We Argue. I think the title has a nice ring to it, but I am guilty of the use of an unclear pronoun. The we in my title is troublesome.

We as in 'you and I'?
We as in 'a group I belong to'?
We as in 'a group I belong to, but you don't'?
We as in 'a group I belong to and a different group who argues with my group'?
Oh, I could keep going. My use of an undefined pronoun leaves a lot for readers to decipher. Here on a public blog, that's not a very wise choice. I don't know the profile of all my readers, and while one reader may read the 'we' as inclusive, others may read 'we' as exclusive. This could change the meaning of my blog from one reader to the next in ways I hadn't anticipated. It's sloppy.

So, who is this 'we' I'm referring to?

In the composition classroom, a defensive student presented with this question typically comes up with a variation on the following answer: I'm going to leave that up to the reader. It is the reader's job to decide if they are with me or against me. 

That sounds nice, doesn't it? It acknowledges writing as a social activity, and puts agency into the hands of the reader.

If it were my intention to give a reader that responsibility, then I could stop right here. Readers could decide whether they are with me or against me.

But I do not think that is a productive purpose for my writing. That describes the work of partisan pundits, a group who may be included in the 'we,' but I don't want to join a group exclusively composed of such people.

No, I don't want this blog to be an exercise in drawing lines in the sand. And leaving the 'we' undefined would move the effort in that direction.

In composition class, if my students use undefined pronouns such as 'you,' 'they,' or 'we,' I try to get them to describe the who behind those words. All to often, the words are lazy shorthand for a subject too complicated or uncomfortable for students to wrestle with. The 'they' often refers to a shadowy group of people who control everything, as in, "They knew the financial crisis was coming, and they choose to do nothing about it." Or maybe the 'they' refers to a miraculously homogeneous group of people different from the author, as in, "They have trouble succeeding in school because they lack support at home." There's a lot of unexplored complexity hiding behind those theys.

An undefined 'we' often hides similar complexities.  So again, what does my 'we' refer to?

If my aim here is to examine public discourse in America, then I think I'm talking about the Constitutional 'we,' as in "We the people..." That seems vague, I know, but I'm going to pull another overused quote to tighten the focus a bit.

At the end of his famous Gettysburg Address, Lincoln describes the US government as "of the people, by the people, for the people" (What a graceful use of parallel structure).

I count myself among the people in that quote, but I don't think everyone in America can say the same thing. A lot of people seem to be ignoring the "by the people" part of the quote.  Many people don't vote. Many people don't work to understand public issues that affect them personally. Many people don't try to understand the views of people with whom they disagree. All important parts of participating in the public discourse of a democracy. My aim as a teacher and writer is to encourage more people to actively assert themselves as members of Lincoln's people.

I think the best way for people to do so is to become thoughtfully engaged.

So that is the 'we' I'm aiming at.

Do you count yourself among us?