Private political debate – that is, debate between ordinary citizens - is as old as politics itself. From the agora to the water cooler, people have gathered to argue their views, oftentimes quite vehemently. Editorial pages and call-in shows have long reflected this psychological need and provided an outlet for it. Never before, however, have ordinary citizens had the outlet that the Internet provides. The increased use of the Internet in homes, schools, and businesses has given the majority of Americans access to sites (which often echo the contents of print and broadcast sources) where they can express their views without the editorial filter that the call-in shows and Op-Ed pages employ. While the availability of political debate has increased, the quality of the discourse has not risen. It seems that the rhetorical elements of kairos, ethos, and pathos are as hale and hardy as ever they were, as they are the elements that drive modern online political discussion. Stasis and heuristics, however, are continually ignored, and in some cases even disdained.

 

Pathos, of course, is readily available in even the most benign political discussions. Even when the main item in the discussion is reasonably objective, pathos will appear promptly in the comments. "Soon the taxpayers will all be unemployed and no longer able to carry the beast of President Obama and his minion's (sic) government on their backs" writes a reader in response to a CNN Ticker story about the first White House dinner party. "I don't care how bad you thought you had it before this bunch came on the scene. We are all going to miss our old way of life." Obviously, the person posting under the name "Burdened" feels strongly about the President's economic plan, although placing that concern in the dinner party story, rather than one about the stimulus plan, makes it seem hyperbolic at best and exemplifies the misplaced attempts at creating kairos that one is forced to wade through in such discussions. Such purely pathetic (using both definitions of the word) arguments are ubiquitous and easily dismiss anything resembling research or factual basis because making people think is not their function. Anyone who thinks is going to realize that a dinner for the Governors – an occasion hosted annually by every President – is hardly going to be the straw that breaks America's economic back. This argument exists only to make people feel something: fear of unemployment, fear of economic depression, fear of losing their status, and fear of the current administration. While this tactic fails to create kairos for that particular complaint in that particular context, it will contribute to the community's ethos – but only amongst those already inclined to oppose the stimulus plan and to latch onto any available argument against it. Those who are disinclined will reject the argument as off topic, and may find their own sense of community with those who bash the offender.

 

Kairos is, naturally, not just present in every online political discussion – it is the source of them. Politics, by nature, is about what's happening now. No one hears arguments for or against the Spanish American War these days unless they're watching Citizen Kane, itself filmed 43 years after that war's kairotic moment. Some arguments, of course, are seemingly eternal. Crowly and Hawhee point out the excellent example of the never-ending abortion debate in Ancient Rhetorics, a debate whose kairos is elongated by a lack of stasis. The question of abortion's morality and legality can't be answered until both sides agree what the argument is about in the first place, as the constant bickering at the Daily Lobo website about when life begins exemplifies. Another example is the constant debate over gun rights, although this currently gains kairos not through a lack of stasis, but rather a lack of research. After all, President Obama has not said a thing about curtailing gun rights, and Joe Biden is pro-hunting. The gun debate's kairos is fueled in part by faulty or missing heuristics. This is common in online arguments, however. After all, a hunting website doesn't come and go like newspaper articles do – they are there every day looking for readers and advertisers. As a result, topical websites such as these have good reason to try and reinvent their kairos on a regular basis.

 

            Lack of heuristics isn't only found in the comments. Many pundits, people who are employed specifically to influence public opinion, are lax in their research. No one has ever accused Michelle Malkin or Randy Rhodes of digging too deeply for facts. Even George Will, a pundit with a highly situated ethos, has recently been caught fudging facts in his arguments against global warming; among other things he thoroughly misstated scientists' conclusions regarding the quantity of global sea ice. The defense is, of course, that Will is an opinion columnist rather than a journalist, and so can use faulty inferences and misstatement of facts in the name of opinion, as Rush Limbaugh does in the name of entertainment.  News items, however, will normally be more objective, although often incomplete.

 

            It would seem that, when discussing politics and current events, the value of making informed arguments, backed by solid facts, would be obvious. How better to show your point of view's superiority than to show the incontrovertibility of your argument's support structure? Yet heuristics are not always ignored, sometimes they are disdained outright. "I could use some statistics to support my view without taking in the full picture, however, I would rather just reason it out" said one of my more frequent opponents at the Daily Lobo website. Another writer echoes that sentiment in another thread; "…anyone can refer to something as being a fact." Ancient rhetors would not necessarily argue against those points. "Reasoning it out" was the accepted method for all intellectual endeavor long ago. It was, in fact (one that I pointed out in that conversation) the method that gave us the geocentric model of the universe, several philosophies, and much of what we call religion. In modern argumentation, however, it is easily dismissed as the method that, due to its inadequacy, led to the development of the scientific method. This response is especially cogent in discussions of policy, where prior experiences can have bearing and where the facts do not always agree with what can be reasoned.

 

Why are heuristics so frequently ignored or treated with contempt? The first possibility that jumps to mind is lack of education – perhaps people simply don't know how to find the information they need, or don't realize the importance of doing so. This rings a bit hollow, however. These people knew how to find the discussion, after all. They were techno savvy enough to participate. Everyone who knows how to use a web browser knows how to use Google. It may be, however, that those at lower educational levels adopt attractive ideas without skepticism, and may easily be manipulated into believing that someone else has done the research for them.

 

This trust is easy for several types of modern rhetor to take advantage of. The first type is the pundit. Pundits are everywhere – every channel and news source has them, and each of those pundits has a website – as do many that have no offline outlet. They seem to have larger audiences than the major news outlets, possibly due to their constant use of pathos. Many people who see the value of having facts and figures to back up their assertions assume that the facts and figures that the media pundits use have been researched and are accurate. These assumptions reflect the pundit's situated ethos; the pundit is, of course, an "expert" and knows what he is talking about. Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this ethos, and his listeners rarely doubt what he says.

 

His is a phony ethos, however. One minute's Internet research reveals that Limbaugh has no education in political science, foreign policy, economics, social sciences, or any of the subjects he is paid- quite highly – to opine on. He dropped out of college after three terms, having failed everything including a modern ballroom dancing class. His history shows that there is only one thing that he could be shown to be an absolute expert on – doing a radio show (and having someone repeat what he says on a website for those who can't listen in). His situated ethos derives not from what he knows, but the flair with which he tells his audience what they want to hear. Much the same can be said for liberal pundit Randi Rhodes, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, and many others.

 

People also skip research because they believe what they are told by people who should be accurate, but are not. Politicians and reporters are the main culprits here. When Sarah Palin repeats that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" enough times and the media quotes her saying it every time, people who believe in Sarah Palin will parrot it in complete disregard for the fact that Obama and Ayers have never been known to be "pals," or even casual friends. When Joe Biden talks about McCain voting against troop funding, he does so without mentioning McCain's objection to the war-ending timeline the provision contained. These inaccuracies aren't the result of shoddy research, however, only the repetition of them by others is. The initial falsehoods – often lies of omission - are the result of ulterior motives. A party-loyal Republican will, of course, be pro-war in Iraq, despite the array of justifications that have already floundered. Someone who owns oil company stock (or who, like a conservative pundit may, receives pay from these companies) will promote new offshore drilling contracts despite the fact that such drilling is already possible but is not as convenient as Exxon would like. The NRA will increase membership by creating a threat to gun rights where one does not exist (and the gun shop owners will promote it in hopes of increased sales to enthusiasts who want to "stock up while they can"). The primary lies will appear in news site columns and pundit websites as well as non-Internet sources like newspapers, television, and radio, to be relayed by the faithful in blogs, comments, and e-mails.

 

            Another reason why everyday people will skip heuristics in their arguments is posturing. When people aren't sure of their assertions or are not willing to accept opposing views easily, they can pretend that their ideas are so obvious that they don't warrant the effort of providing proof. "Ah, Joe the Troll, it's not my job to educate you on the candidates' backgrounds and their positions," said "lilamar" on the Daily Lobo site when asked to detail what she called Ralph Nader's "extensive political resume." While she ostensibly sought to put the onus of research upon the reader, she could not have honestly expected that to happen. Why would the reader take it upon himself to prove someone else's point? A few more intellectually curious ones may; most will not. To expect it would seem an inefficient way to sway opinions. More likely, the shifting of responsibility was meant to make the readers feel shamed into simply accepting her assertions as being more informed than their own opinions. While that may be true in some cases, it makes for an underhanded argument, one that provides plenty of room for doubt about lilamar's veracity. This is a tactic that can be used in any milieu; however, easy access to search engines makes it more effective on the Internet. It's harder to harangue someone into forgiving a lack of evidence when research facilities aren't  readily available to the audience, as they are when the audience is already online.

 

            It may be, also, that today's lack of heuristics can be traced to a misconception about how voters make decisions. Consider the abstract from It Feels Like We're Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy by Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen:

           

            "The familiar image of rational electoral choice has voters weighing the competing candidates' strengths and weaknesses, calculating comparative distances in issue space, and assessing the president's management of foreign affairs and the national economy. Indeed, once or twice in a lifetime, a national or personal crisis does induce political thought. But most of the time, the voters adopt issue positions, adjust their candidate perceptions, and invent facts to rationalize decisions they have already made. The implications of this distinction between genuine thinking and its day-to-day counterfeit strike at the roots of both positive and normative theories of electoral democracy."

 

In other words, while we assume that people choose their candidates on the basis of their positions on the issues, the authors assert that people will instead choose the candidate that they like, then change their own positions to match the candidate's or misstate the candidate's to match theirs. One can easily find support for this in almost any political argument. It can certainly explain why middle class people who were wary of "tax and spend Democrats" have argued that McCain's tax policies were in their favor, despite the fact that the numbers said the opposite. It can also explain why anti-war Democrats are suddenly so supportive of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, as President Obama intends. In such a process, facts can only get in the way. If a political decision is the result of pathos in the first place, it is pathos that will be used to support it, regardless of what the facts say. Thus, it is easy to find comments on CNN.com or MSNBC.com from Clinton supporting Democrats that criticize Obama's policies despite their close similarity to Clinton's policies. By the same token, conservative websites and blogs will brim with comments from those who supported Bush all the way, but have suddenly found a fear of big government that didn't arise when the Bush administration was increasing the government's size, mounting a huge deficit, and weakening Fourth Amendment protections.

 

            Stubbornness is another causal agent in heuristics' seeming demise. As Christina Page reports on the Huffington Post:

 

Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex.

 

Why would anti-abortion organizations, which are as active online as off, also oppose contraception when contraception is proven across the world to reduce the need for abortions? The HuffPo article mentions two possibilities. First, the organizations have a good fundraising shtick that they hesitate to let go of. Certainly, money has a way of talking. Secondly, the members of these organizations are simply so used to opposing anything that they see as "liberal" that they cannot see when their own goals and the "liberal" goal are aligned. For the purpose of online argumentation, fundraising can be dismissed for the most part. People who comment on news articles and blogs aren't raising funds from their efforts. They can, however, be so used to practicing "us vs. them" politics that they see no need to look beyond the personalities – that is, the ethos – of anyone they see as the opposition. Once again, facts and research can only get in the way in this scenario.

 

            Laziness, of course, cannot be discounted. Lack of heuristics may simply be the result of a person's being too lazy to look for anything to back up his claims, and hoping that anyone who reads his argument will be equally lazy. These arguments often rely on what they see as commonplaces, but can be accurately termed as stereotypes, such as the "tax and spend liberal" and the " intolerant Republican."  While these types of rants are expected in comments, where individuals have anonymity and can simply vent their feelings without being held accountable for accuracy, it is surprising how many online pundits and commentators rely on them and the laziness – or gullibility - of their audiences to make the use of such arguments profitable.

 

Is this a result of the Internet's relative youth? Will online political discussions become more factual as people become more accustomed to and educated by the instant communication and participation that the Internet offers? While one might hope so, only time will tell. It may be that the nature of the Internet – that is, constantly updating and wide open to the public – creates an environment where the driving forces of kairos, ethos, and pathos are sufficient bread and circus to please the masses. It may also be true that the presence of ulterior motives and special interests in political discussions online and off will always create resistance to heuristics. As it stands, however, it is evident that while all online political discussions hinge on some combination of kairos, pathos, and ethos, those looking for researched facts as a basis for argument have a lot of chaff to wade through for relatively little wheat.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009.

 

Bowers, Chris. "New Approaches to Political Decision Making." Open Left. 26 July 2007. 2 February 2009 http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=412

 

"Obama Has Already Failed to Deliver the Change He Promised." New Mexico Daily Lobo Online. 4 February 2009. <http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=36d779e8-95d9-4314-b884-e3334cb61c85>

 

"President, First Lady Host Premier Dinner at WH." CNN.Com: Political Ticker. 20 February 2009. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/20/president-first-lady-host-premier-dinner-at-wh/#comments

 

"Nader's Resume Shows He is Most Qualified Candidate." New Mexico Daily Lobo Online. 23 September 2008.

http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=27a0718d-452b-4e84-9fe1-70bd611d038b

 

            Page, Christina. "'Pro-Life' Movement Admits Pro-Abortion Stance." The Huffington Post. 24 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/pro-life-movement-admits_b_169489.html

 

            Linkins, Jason. "George Will, Washington Post Mount Defense of Widely Debunked Editorial." The Huffington Post. 26 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/george-will-to-mount-defe_n_170346.html