The Art of Arguing

“Mr Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, is blatant hypocrisy a violation of the rules of the House?”
Rep Barney Frank (D-Ma), Mar 11 2008

People like Barney Frank can make memorable quips like this (which was inspired by silly floor fighting between the Republicans and Democrats) and endear himself even to his opponents. Arguing is an art and winning an argument an even greater talent.

Apparently there is a science to arguing, as reported this month in New Scientist magazine. Mental exhaustion, which can be brought on by nagging, plays a major role in persuasion. Among the proven high impact nagging tactics: mirroring the body image of your opponent, not hesitating when making your case, meeting face to face, and limiting the choices you offer.

I think that captures the presidential primaries, where Barack and Hillary have transcended election debates and are now in the final inning nagging voters to break the tie. This month the Democratic campaigns are spending more time figuring out how to make their candidates look like the voters of the remaining primary states rather than defining policy differences. I haven’t been persuaded by Barack’s performance at bowling (where he threw gutter balls) and pool (where he accidentally hit the 8 ball in the corner pocket). I was definitely not moved by Hillary raising her beer mug and doing shots of Crown Royal whiskey.

There are some arguments not worth winning by nagging someone into mental exhaustion. Most decisions don’t work like Presidential elections, where winner takes all for at least four years. President Bush knew that extreme nagging would work when he broke the tie in his race against Al Gore. I’d like to think that the elusive “heart and soul” of the country isn’t won when someone concedes due to nationwide mental exhaustion. Those who have been smart enough to orchestrate shallow victories know they are vulnerable to truths shoved just below the surface.

Journalists have done a remarkable job of turning the presidential primaries into an entertaining reality show. For those of us who still long for the West Wing days, it is some consolation to watch David Broder and Donna Brazile narrate the harrowing contest. On every episode of the West Wing I would wait, riveted, for the “speech” scene. This was the moment when someone delivered a monologue meant to inspire. Sometimes it was a speech; sometimes it was a heated hallway conversation. When Allison Janney (playing CJ) defended the rights of the women of Qumar I was moved by her character, forever.

Scientists this month may have proven that the Democrat who can nag the country into mental exhaustion will face off with John McCain. I still hold out hope that good old fashion persuasion can be paired with West Wing style inspiration. The art of arguing transcends what science can measure, after all. Great arguments have deep passion, a word that derives from the Latin “patior”, meaning to suffer.

We suffer through arguments, or even seek them out, because of the brilliant satisfaction of finding authenticity. My Hillary friends see their truths embodied in her promise. My Barack friends have heard their truths spoken, some for the first time, in his speeches. Both sides will succumb in the general election to their shared panic of a McCain Presidency. But having tasted not just power but a modicum of authenticity in the primaries, some will come to the polls with mental exhaustion; others will be drawn to the polls by the delirious aphrodisiac of inspiration.