The conventional wisdom is that nothing gets done in this country because we are constantly arguing with each other. In particular, nothing gets done in Congress because our elected representatives argue too much.
To the contrary, I claim that we don’t argue enough, and especially that Congress does not argue nearly enough. I believe that fighting is inevitable if we stop arguing, and that we have effectively stopped arguing in a number of very dangerous ways, ways that sidestep the Founding Fathers’ plans to force us to argue.
Sounds like something we could argue about.
So, let me start where I think any good argument starts – by being clear about the terms I am using, and finding things we agree on. The last point is fundamental. It is a waste of time to argue with people who do not share any of your values or beliefs. The critical first step in any real argument is to find things we agree on, and to move on from there. Most of what we call arguments these days are doomed from the start because nobody agrees on anything. We must start on common ground.
To that end, here are the premises and definitions of my argument:
Premise # 1: Disagreements, even conflict, are inevitable. It has been part of the human condition since Eve picked the apple, and Cain killed Abel. Or, from an evolutionary perspective, since proto-humans developed tools to kill their food, and each other.
Premise # 2: Conflict is not to be feared. It can bring about better results than if one side had complete control. It forces people to consider things they might have overlooked. The results achieved by conflict can be both more creative and more just than results imposed by one side. In addition, conflict can empower both sides, which can lead to better results in the future.
Premise # 3. The important question is what to do when conflict arises. In the simplest terms, we can fight, we can argue, or we can submit. To advance my argument that we should be arguing more, and fighting less, I need to be clear about what I mean by “fighting” and what I mean by “arguing.”
Definition: Fighting. Fighting is about making the other person do what we want, or getting them out of the way so that we can do it ourselves. The goal of fighting is submission or, in its extreme form, elimination. The quicker and more complete the submission the better. “Shock and awe” for a few days beats trench warfare for years.
Definition: Arguing. Arguing is about getting the other person to agree with you. The goal of argument is persuasion. Its tools are listening, understanding, facts and logic. Arguing can be slower, but it offers benefits that fighting cannot – better thinking, new solutions and genuine unity. The best brief explanation I have seen about the difference between fighting and arguing is in a video featuring Mr. Rogers. I urge you to watch it before continuing.
The choice between fighting and arguing shows up in many contexts besides two people trying to work something out. Nations have to choose war or diplomacy. Businesses can try to achieve monopoly control over the market, or can settle for competition. Government can be based on winners dominating losers, or it can be based on persuading others about what is right.
In the United States, that choice has been made for us. In its essence, the Constitution says that while government will not have a monopoly on violence (see the Second Amendment), we will resolve our disputes by argument, not by fighting. The founders had just seen Shay’s Rebellion and the problems with letting policy be set by insurrectionists. The American system relies, time and again, on making people argue if they want to get their way.
Leaders have to persuade voters in order to take office. Once in office, they have to persuade fellow members of the House or Senate to adopt a bill. They have to persuade the President not to veto it, or persuade a supermajority to override the veto. If there are legal questions about the validity or interpretation of a bill, it will be settled by persuading a judge (or a series of judges). We understand all of these steps, but sometimes overlook that each of these steps assume that here will be argument, following rules laid down by the Constitution, by Congress, or by centuries of jurisprudence.
Fundamental to the system is the assumption that the person who loses the argument will abide by the decision rendered by the system. The minority will be heard but, in the end, the majority rules. Fighting after you lost the argument is a good working definition of insurrection.
So, I urge you to accept my view that arguing, as opposed to fighting, is good, and is the core of how we are supposed to do things in the United States.
The second part of my argument, advanced in a separate post, is that our elected leaders have stopped arguing along the lines laid out in the Constitution, and have instead decided to fight. They are able to do this because we have allowed them to replace the Constitutional system with a system that rewards fighting for political gain. Finally, I will argue that if f we don’t return to the Constitutional system, our democracy is in danger.
