Opposing Arguments

by Deborah Tannen

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Campaign season is upon us and with it a predictable breast-beating about our public discourse and the role it plays in how we choose a president. Every four years we hear a bemoaning of the argumentativeness, the acrimonious arguments and the trading of accusations that are ubiquitous on the airwaves. As the author of a book, "The Argument Culture," that claims our democracy is being undermined by the increasingly adversative nature of discourse in our public and private lives, I might be expected to add my voice to that chorus. But I won't. I believe, instead, that in choosing a president, we need more opposition in our public and private discourse. Let me explain.

By "opposition," I don't mean the pervasive shouting that television and radio talk shows regularly serve up, predictably pitting opposing spokespersons against each other - the more extreme their views the better, since it makes for a livelier fight. This predilection means that candidates' attacks on each other receive far more attention than anything else they might say, such as outlining policies they propose to pursue. It also means that candidates' mutual attacks are reported as events in themselves, with no distinction made between critique of an opponent's policies and critique of his character, and little or no time spent on examining the validity of their accusations.

We need less of these ritualized forms of opposition and more of the literal kind. In place of opponents shouting each other down, we need forums where opponents are given ample time - and uninterrupted space - to explain their views. Let's have no more questioning of opponents' motives (e.g., the administration attacked Iraq to make money for Halliburton; questioning how the war is being prosecuted aids and abets the enemy) and more arguments about opponents' policies, proposed and past. How has the occupation in Iraq been handled and how should it be handled now? Has the country been made safer, and how can we best protect ourselves going forward? And may we never again hear that questioning our government's policies is unpatriotic. Such loyal opposition is the foundation of democracy.

We need more opposition in our private discourse too. I was having lunch with my father and two other residents at a senior living facility to which he had recently moved. "Doesn't anyone talk politics here?" he asked in frustration. The woman sitting with us set her lips and sealed her expression. "I don't talk politics," she announced. When American college students go to study in Germany, they are taken aback when their German counterparts try to engage them in heated political arguments. Americans tend to feel it is inappropriate, even unseemly, to argue politics with people they don't know - and even with those they do. This reluctance to risk conflict in conversation means that we aren't forced to articulate, and therefore examine, the logical underpinnings of our positions, and we aren't exposed to the views of those with whom we disagree. Even worse, when young people don't hear adults arguing politics, it reinforces their impression that politics has no relevance to their lives. Surely this plays a role in the astonishingly low voter turnout among young Americans. When I wonder why I feel passionately engaged at election time and cannot imagine not voting, I conclude that part of the reason is my father's passion for politics, a passion that ensured I grew up hearing political arguments.

These are the kinds of opposition that enhance our democracy. This is the opposition of which we need more.

Deborah Tannen is on the linguistics department faculty at Georgetown University, where she is one of only two faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences who hold the distinguished rank of university professor. She has published 19 books and nearly 100 articles and is the recipient of five honorary doctorates. Tannen is best known as the author of "You Just Don't Understand," which was on the New York Times' best-seller list for nearly four years, including eight months as No. 1. This is the book that brought gender differences in communication style to the forefront of public awareness.

Do you ever discuss politics with people who hold opposing views? Has anyone ever persuaded you to think differently about a political issue? If so, tell us the circumstances. Do you think the kind of opposition featured in mainstream media is helpful?

dmattice writes: "Yes, the kind of opposing arguments on media are somewhat helpful, but the liberal media always has the last word. but still, it doesn't matter what the media posts: certain people are going to stick to their political party no matter what. i am one of those people. i cannot submit myself to socialism and i have a real concern that the democratic party is headed in that direction. how can the media help? stop being so liberal. liberalism has changed its definition over the years. it doesn't mean freedoms and rights for all anymore, but it means big government and socialist programs. when our forefathers described the american dream as all people having the right to freedom and the pursiut of happiness, i'm sure they didn't mean the government would be paying for that. pursuing your own happiness means just that: work hard and earn it, make the best choices possible and live according to your choices..."

Deciding Votes | The Savvy Voter | Web Roundup

Election Glossary | For Kids, Parents and Teachers
About This Site | Site Credits | pbs.org Privacy Policy

Copyright © 1995 - 2005 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). All rights reserved.