Before I use the next few posts to further delve into how to make use of motion context and environment in more effective persuasion, in this post I wanted to create a easy method of orally deconstructing complex and long arguments, using a famous example.
Here is how I set out James Madison's written argument:
1. Faction is the main cause of strife in small republics.
2. There are two ways to control faction, one is to eliminate the causes of faction, and one is to mitigate the effects.
3. We cannot eliminate the causes of faction for many reasons including, human nature is flawed, a free society is an inherently unequal society and one man will always have interests mutually exclusive to and competitive against another.
4. Therefore we must look at mitigation.
4.1 However, in small republics, mitigation is not always possible because we wont always have virtuous statesmen at the helm.
4.2 This is because in small republics, there are no checks on inducements to corrupt the leader, and no guarantee that leaders are genuinely concerned for maintaining equality.
5. With caveats 4.1 and 4.2, one can conclude that faction is an inherent flaw in small republics that cannot be mitigated with the ideals and principles of small republics alone.
6. Therefore, we must turn to large republics.
7. In large republics, factions are rendered incapable of a dominating voice and effecting schemes of oppression and corruption because there are now many, instead of a few albeit disproportionately sized ones.
7.1 However a large number of factions, and hence leaders, is a source of confusion and lack of unity.
7.2 In large republics leaders are less attached to the issues and details of local politics.
8. Both small and large republics are clearly therefore not in themselves perfect forms of government, but their principles and ideals can be adapted in concert to suit the varied needs and interests at both the local and the national level.
9. The federal Constitution forms the happy balance between these two "ideals", as we prevent factious communities from oppressing minorities by having a national rule of law, but at the same time preserve the voice of local issues and interests by assigning these matters to the state legislatures.
Here's how I would put it in oral form:
1. Here's a major issue that would arise under your paradigm*
2. There are only two ways to solve it if we stick to your paradigm.
3. One is clearly possible only in theory, and hence the other is our reluctant choice
4. Lo and behold, that choice isn't perfect either! Your paradigm is thus inherently flawed.
5. Adopting the Constitution actually solves that issue better than not adopting it.
6. Therefore, we should adopt the Constitution.
*A paradigm is a belief that is not explicitly stated but assumed throughout every point: in this case it is when you feel that a particular system of government is best for ruling the country.
And here is, in my view, the best way to take down the oral form:
1. Take a moment to find the appropriate way to describe their paradigm in their terms. Pro-Constitution is too vague; Pro-large-republic is closer but inaccurate; pro-large-republic with a nod at small-state republicanism is most appropriate.
2. Step 1 allows you to take their argument and turn it in your favour, because if they can do it with yours, you can do it with theirs.
3. Draw it into the context of the whole debate. This is the glorious era of the Second Founding, when ideologies are beginning to take root in the American consciousness. It matters that leaders be virtuous and not susceptible to corruption. It matters that equality is at least realised in the collective consciousness of the people, even if it were not to be achieved in reality.
3.2 Again, I want to stress here that we cannot bite off more than we can chew, but this time I am talking about our own stand. We are not going to spend our limited time hashing out the merits of the anti-Federalists.
4. Identify the weakest link, look for clearly disputable statements because these would be the points of contention most clear to everyone else in the room as well. In this case it would be 2: There are only two ways to solve faction. This is a good place to start because their entire case rests on this, and if you can show that a solution/compromise exists under yours, their whole argument is already moot.
And here is how to set out the oral critique:
1. We aren't just concerned with solving the disconcerts of faction. Our entire case for non-Constitutionalism rests on the need to preserve the powers of small state government and how it realizes individual self-actualization much better than large state governments can.
2. Faction isn't just a major flaw in our paradigm, faction is a problem for both our paradigms. The only difference is that it is an absolute evil in ours and a perverse, necessary evil in yours. This distinction is the fundamental problem with your case! Encouraging faction for the sake of controlling it isn't a legitimate reason for large-state government, even if it proves to be effective.
3. We also say that it is important that leaders send the right message appropriate for the times, be it with or without the Constitution. What does it say about a leader if he proposes to solve a problem by encoruaging more of it?
4. We therefore propose the small-republic solution: put in checks and balances to protect virtuous leaders from corruption. Give them incentives to listen to the interests of minority lobbying groups. There is nothing inherently wrong with small-state republican ideology. The problem lies with your flawed interpretation of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment