Shady Rovian Debate Strategy
How Rovian debate strategy is distroying intelligent discource.
Anyone who has taken a moment to analyze republican debate strategy will tell you that it is based, almost entirely, on two basic premises. First, they work hard to quickly re-frame arguments against them, and secondly, they attempt to assassinate the character of anyone who does not agree with them; usually by labeling. In short, they attempt to transform conceptual debates into personal attacks, and in so doing, change the nature of the argument from a logical discourse to a divisive emotional catalyst. Finally, by using the media sources at their disposal, they attempt to hammer the NEW argument home by repeating it over and over again for a set period of time.
When we take a look at this methodology from a debate structure standpoint, it seems ludicrous. It is simply not acceptable, in formal discourse, to change the fundamental basis of an argument, or to personally attack your opponent. In a courtroom setting, for instance, these methods would, at the very least, result in objections, and perhaps end in a mistrial with the offending lawyer being held in contempt. These techniques have, however, worked for the republicans for one very simple reason. Perception.
Many people are not trained in the rules of formal discourse, and, as a result, run the risk of falling into the republican trap by allowing their emotions to overrule basic logic. Let me explain, by dissecting a typical republican argument, and identifying the points at which the argument is first re-framed, then turned into a personal attack, and finally repeated to the point where a new, and entirely wrong perception is generated.
Taking the argument against abortion, let’s assume that we have a non-republican candidate who goes on record stating that he stands in defense of a woman’s right to choose. He states that he supports keeping abortion legal not because he is “pro-abortion”, but because he recognizes that, legal or not, abortions are going to be performed, and he wants to ensure that it is done under safe, medical conditions. Republicans begin their attack, not by stating a series of logical arguments against abortion, but by trying to inflame the emotions of the audience. They may do so by crying, “abortion is murder” or perhaps going so far as to show a grotesque image of aborted fetal tissue. Either way, they take the subject matter to the extreme fringe, re-framing the argument from one about the realistic benefits and drawbacks to abortion, to inflamed rhetoric about “the immorality of killing babies”.
Now that the argument is re-framed, it is time for the republican character assassination machine to go to work. This is where the republican media resources such as Fox News really tend to weigh in. They begin by subtly changing a few key words. “Insurgent” becomes “terrorist”, “suicide bomber” becomes “homicide bomber”, and in the case of our example here, anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose becomes an “abortionist”.
Our candidate started off as a person with a stance on many issues. A person who, as a small part of his platform, believed that it is safer for a woman who, for whatever reason, decides to have an abortion, to have it in performed under medical conditions than with a coat hanger. Now, however, because the argument has been successfully re-framed, the conservative media outlets freely pound away, calling him a “single-issue, abortionist monster who is in favor of killing innocent children”.
Clearly this is no way to debate an issue. It is not only unethical; it stands diametrically opposed to the values of open, honest communication and debate our forefathers envisioned for our country. We must stop this atrocity before it grows any larger, and we must never again let anyone win a debate by re-framing an argument! Finally, we must build enough awareness surrounding correct and ethical ways to debate issues, that these barbaric republican techniques are forever relegated to the history books.
Another analysis of Rovian tactics >
Discuss This Article
|
|
Got something to say?
