Political Argument in a Polarized Age: Reason and Democratic Life

From obnoxious public figures to online trolling and accusations of “fake news”, almost no one seems able to disagree without hostility. But polite discord sounds farfetched when issues are so personal and fundamental that those on opposing sides appear to have no common ground. How do you debate the “enemy”? Philosophers Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse show that disagreeing civilly, even with your sworn enemies, is a crucial part of democracy. Rejecting the popular view that civility requires a polite and concessive attitude, they argue that our biggest challenge is not remaining calm in the face of an opponent, but rather ensuring that our political arguments actually address those on the opposing side. Too often politicians and pundits merely simulate political debate, offering carefully structured caricatures of their opponents. These simulations mimic political argument in a way designed to convince citizens that those with whom they disagree are not worth talking to. Good democracy thrives off conflict, but until we learn the difference between real and simulated arguments we will be doomed to speak at cross-purposes. Aikin and Talisse provide a crash course in political rhetoric for the concerned citizen, showing readers why understanding the structure of arguments is just as vital for a healthy democracy as debate over facts and values. But there’s a sting in the tail - no sooner have we learned rhetorical techniques for better disagreement than these techniques themselves become weapons with which to ignore our enemies, as accusations like “false equivalence” and “ad hominem” are used to silence criticism. Civility requires us to be eternally vigilant to the ways we disagree.

Table of Contents:
Acknowledgments 1 Democracy in Dark Days Civility and the Owl of Minerva Problem 2 Civility and Its Discontents Democracy as a Society of Equals Political Disagreement among Equals Civility in Political Disagreement The Demands of Civility 3 Evaluating Argument Argumentation and Its Values Abuses of Argumentation 4 Our Polarization Problem Two Kinds of Polarization How Does Belief Polarization Work? The Polarization Dynamic Polarization Undermines Democracy Note 5 Political Ignorance Ways of Being Ignorant Tribal Citizens 6 Simulated Argument Argument as Rhetoric Argument as Group Affirmation Memeology 7 Fake News What is Fake News? An Institutional View The Demand for Fake News The War for Your Mind 8 Deep Disagreements Deep Disagreements and the Good, Bad, News Charity and Disagreement Calling Disagreements “Deep” Depths of Disagreement Note 9 Civility as a Reciprocal Virtue Reciprocal Public Virtues The Debasement Puzzle The Path to Debasement The Need for an Argumentative Culture 10 Repairing Argumentative Culture Some Rudiments of Deductive Logic The Turn to Informal Logic Pathologizing the Opposition Hearing the Other Side 11 Democracy at Dusk Scaling Up the Problem The Fallacy Fallacy More on Fake News Trolls, Sock-puppets, and Bots The Owl in Full View Index

About the Author :
Scott F. Aikin is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Robert B. Talisse is W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.

Review :
�Democracy appears threatened from the deepening, polarisation of citizens. From Trump to Brexit where one person's truth is another's fake news, wisdom is much needed to help us navigate such uncertain, choppy waters. Thankfully, we have two such guides in Aikin and Talisse who can bring clarity of understanding to what is complex and obscure. An excellent read.� Professor Thom Brooks, Chair in Law and Government, Durham University �At a time of deep political polarization, Professors Aikin and Talisse have written a very important book designed, not to try to save democracy, but to manage its symptoms. Their focus on the virtue of civility is especially significant. Highly recommended!� Christian B. Miller, A.C. Reid Professor of Philosophy at Wake Forest University