Argumentation

, 22:317 | Cite as

Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation

Article

Abstract

Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing the locus of the irreparable, and argumentative use of figures and tropes. It is difficult to evaluate strategic maneuvering in political argumentation, however, because the activity types dictate wide latitude for the arguers, so there are few cases of unquestionable derailment.

Keywords

Political argumentation Strategic maneuvering Campaigns Framing Presidential debates 

References

  1. Conley P.H. 2001. Presidential mandates: How elections shape the national agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Eemeren, F.H. van, and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Farrell T.B. 1976. Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodnight, G.T. 1980. The Liberal and the Conservative Presumption. Proceedings of the [First] Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  5. Goodnight G.T. 1982. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy 18(4): 214–227.Google Scholar
  6. Griffin L.M. 1952. The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech 38(2): 184–188.Google Scholar
  7. Kekes J. 1977. Essentially contested concepts: A reconsideration. Philosophy and Rhetoric 10(2): 71–89.Google Scholar
  8. Kraus, S. (ed.) 1962/1977. The great debates. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958/1969. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sapir, E. 1934. Symbolism. In: E.R.A. Seligman (ed.) Encyclopaedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Zarefsky, D. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20(4): 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations