When we last left off, we had just diagrammed the central argument President Obama presented in his recent ABC interview using the Toulmin method for argument mapping.
If you recall, that method lets us keep statements in normal, human language (rather than having to convert them to the type of logical statements used in a syllogism). And, in this case, those statements are broken into a Claim the President is asking you to believe, (that Mitt Romney is being dishonest with voters) which he says flows from a specified set of Grounds (that Mitt Romney has been inconsistent with regard to what he tells different audiences). And the Claim and Grounds are linked with a Warrant that states that the only reason someone would behave in such an inconsistent manner is a lack of honesty.
Once mapped, an argument becomes easier to both attack and defend. For example, if I were to attack this argument, I can choose to attack either the Grounds (by proving that Romney has not been saying different things to different audiences). This would involve either a positive refutation (showing that most, if not all, of his statements have been consistent), a negative refutation (demonstrating that the examples Obama uses to illustrate Romney’s inconsistency are wrong) or a combination of both.
Because such an attack on the Grounds would likely lead to an endless series of sub-arguments over dozens, if not hundreds, of examples (each of which could be mapped using their own Toulmin components), it might be more fruitful to leave the Grounds alone (implying, at least for the purpose of this argument, an acceptance that the Republican candidate has indeed said different things to different people) and instead zero in on the Warrant.
Such an attack on the Warrant can be far more efficient since, in this case, I simply need to demonstrate that there are other reasonable explanations as to why a candidate might behave inconsistently, other than dishonesty. I could, for instance, point out that it is a long-standing tradition for candidates to play to a more partisan audience during the primaries (since they are trying to convince voters of just one political persuasion during that period), and then modify that message when talking to a broader electorate during the general election.
Such an attack could use examples of other Presidential candidates (including Obama) doing this same thing (“pulling Left” during the Primaries, then broadening out his message for an audience of Independent voters in the General, presuming he did so during the 2008 election).
I could also cite other instances where inconsistency can imply something other than dishonesty (such as evolution in thinking, a response to changing circumstances, or openness to new information). While this would not likely be as effective as the “Everyone Does It” attack noted above (since changing one’s position is perceived as representing dishonesty or wishy-washiness in our current public discourse, unfortunately), it might be effective if I can use such an attack to remind the audience of their own unrealistic expectations of consistency (given the inconsistency in every person’s thinking and behavior noted at the end of the last podcast).
Keep in mind that I don’t have to prove with absolute certainty that inconsistency does not always equal dishonesty. I simply have to place enough doubt in people’s minds regarding the Warrant (by providing them reasonable alternative explanations for why a politician might say different things to different audiences) to make them question the strength of the entire argument.
Also, remember that Obama is not making the claim that Romney is just like any politician (who frequently tell different audiences what they’d like to hear), but that his inconsistency is so extreme and extraordinary that we should doubt his veracity across the board (to the point where he has lost the credibility needed to deserve your vote). And by placing such doubt in the Warrant, the argument can be weakened enough that it would then fall on the accuser to prove the Warrant, rather than the accused to deny the Grounds or Claim.
In fact, an “Everyone Does It” attack on the Warrant can be particularly effective in this case since by claiming that inconsistency equals dishonesty, the accuser opens himself up to charges of hypocrisy if it can be demonstrated that he too says (or has said) different things to different audiences. And this accusation would imply a double level of inconsistency (both inconsistency in behavior, and an inconsistent – or double – standard for judging others).
Keep in mind that this type of argument mapping and attack/defense analysis process is something everyone (including you) can and should use to analyze your own arguments before presenting them, allowing you to anticipate attacks in advance and prepare proper defenses and counter-attacks.
So, in this instance, you can think of this analysis as not just providing the Republican a blueprint for countering accusations sure to come during tonight’s debate and beyond, but a guidepost to the Democrats for how to evaluate the strength of an argument they have made central to their campaign, and what they should do to prepare for counter-arguments that will surely be raised against it.
The post Toulmin and Consistency – 2 appeared first on Critical Voter.