How do you argue your side of an emotional, contentious issue in a way that doesn’t further divide people? President Obama’s recent speech on “Protecting Our Security and Our Values” delivered at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, was an example of a well-argued speech that unfortunately will only inflame the debate further.
The speech is a clearly-constructed brief on what the Obama Administration has done to keep America safe – and how it has diverged from the previous administration’s attempts to do exactly the same thing. However you feel about the politics of the matter, if Obama was hoping to still the debate, here’s where he went wrong:
After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era — that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that — too often — our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent.
In other words, we went off course.
Whether you agree or disagree with the analysis, you have to believe that this does not describe what the previous administration thought it was doing. So, from the point of view of the other side, you can only feel that Obama has distorted your position. And when you feel that your position has been distorted, you dig in, you don’t come around.
What should Obama have done differently? If you want bring the other side in, then you have to give its arguments full scope and credence. You can’t ascribe haste, fear, and the trimming of facts and evidence to them, even if you believe that to be the case. You can’t accuse them of setting aside their principles. You have to argue the other side’s case on its own merits.
Then, and only then, you can give your own position. To forestall criticism and avoid inflaming a debate further, understand and be ready to give the other side’s position. Fairly. First. And forthrightly.
Nick
I agree with your analysis in theory. Due to the nature of politics your suggestions are impractical in application. The nature of the beast is to give your side of the story when you have the throne.
Nick
I agree with your analysis in theory. Due to the nature of politics your suggestions are impractical in application. The nature of the beast is to give your side of the story when you have the throne.
Marcus, thanks for the comment. While you’re absolutely right that the temptation is strong to “give your side of the story when you have the throne,” there’s nothing impractical about my ‘theory’. President Bush used it to great effect in a speech about stem cell usage in his first term. He carefully covered both sides of the debate, and the argument went away for several years. It has recently returned — under a new president. The theory works. It’s just hard for politicians to do.
Marcus, thanks for the comment. While you’re absolutely right that the temptation is strong to “give your side of the story when you have the throne,” there’s nothing impractical about my ‘theory’. President Bush used it to great effect in a speech about stem cell usage in his first term. He carefully covered both sides of the debate, and the argument went away for several years. It has recently returned — under a new president. The theory works. It’s just hard for politicians to do.
Nick,
Great writing. And yes, Bush did as you say on stem cells. I don’t think the argument went away, I think it disappeared under a blanket of larger issues and a cloud of fear. As to Obama’s speech, I think it comes down to the goal of the speech, which clearly isn’t to win over the entrenched opposition. No matter what he says, those guys fault him for it. Instead, it was, in typical Obama persuasion style, designed to soothe, to give some benefit of the doubt to the motives of his predecessors, and to speak to the difference in his approach. And in that, I find him most persuasive.
Best wishes,
Rick
Nick,
Great writing. And yes, Bush did as you say on stem cells. I don’t think the argument went away, I think it disappeared under a blanket of larger issues and a cloud of fear. As to Obama’s speech, I think it comes down to the goal of the speech, which clearly isn’t to win over the entrenched opposition. No matter what he says, those guys fault him for it. Instead, it was, in typical Obama persuasion style, designed to soothe, to give some benefit of the doubt to the motives of his predecessors, and to speak to the difference in his approach. And in that, I find him most persuasive.
Best wishes,
Rick
Nick: Nice job on this. I also liked the longer version you did for Harvard Business’ Conversation Starter blog. For those reading this comment, the URL is http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/05/how_to_debate_without_further.html. It’s an important reminder for those who are terrific speakers as to how easy it is to get off track.
Nick: Nice job on this. I also liked the longer version you did for Harvard Business’ Conversation Starter blog. For those reading this comment, the URL is http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/05/how_to_debate_without_further.html. It’s an important reminder for those who are terrific speakers as to how easy it is to get off track.