CENTRAL OBLIGATON

Let me share a brief word on obligation.  In a free society, are we free to decide we have no obligation toward that society?  For example, if you were living in the US on December 8, 1941, had the means to travel out of the country and escape any call for the draft which would result in finding yourself in the armed forces, would you have had an obligation to stay in the country and have done your part to fight the enemy?  More to the point being made here, did you have a right to leave?  How about in peace time; are there obligations in normal times?  Do you have an obligation to obey laws and pay taxes – to be simply civil and good-natured toward your fellow citizens?  Or do you have the right to choose values and courses of action in which you are not these things, singularly or collectively?  I ask because central to the natural rights construct is this notion of liberty in which you do have such rights, with maybe the exception to disobey the law – including not paying taxes.  What is the extent, under the natural rights approach, of a citizen’s obligations, of his or her rights?  What are the distinctions between rights and obligations?  And if one determines that there are obligations beyond obeying the law, should those obligations be bolstered, promoted, or otherwise supported by public policy; that is, backed up by laws or regulations issued by the government?

I honestly don’t know the answer to these questions.  I suppose answers would vary according to the defender of natural rights one chooses to listen to.  Even under the natural rights construct, one believes that one has an obligation not to hurt others or interfere with others sharing in the rights one enjoys.  But how intrusive is that obligation in the normal course of one’s life?  Is it minimal, limited to any direct action that obstructs others having their rights – such as in the case of kidnapping?  Or interfering with someone exercising his/her right of free speech?  Or cheating a partner in a business deal?  And if that is the case, who defines these limits?  What constitutes cheating, for example?  So many questions pop up when the natural rights view is taken seriously?

With a federalist approach, the emphasis changes.  There are questions with this approach, but of a different kind.  There is no question as to whether obligations exist or not.  They do and they are extensive and potentially subject to legal backing.  The main question becomes how do you justify obligations as in asking:  who are you to tell me I owe society so and so?  Charles Taylor[1] provides some thoughts on this type of questions.

I will keep this to the basic notion that obligation stems from what the individual derives from being a member of a free society.  First, if one does not live in a free society, then one is hard-pressed to see any obligations to the society, at least to the government of that society.  But, second, if one does live in a free society, then certain considerations should be taken into account.  Freedom is not a natural state of being.  If it were, human history would not have had to elapse such a long time before liberal nations would have evolved.  And “evolution” is probably not the proper term given the amount of turmoil associated with the institutionalization of those structures and processes that establish and maintain our freedoms.  As the saying goes, freedom isn’t free.  We, who are born to such an arrangement, are “blessed” as a result of our forebears who sacrificed so much to establish our free society.  We, on the other hand, have an obligation under such a reality.  That is, we are obligated not only to preserve the freedom inducing institutions, but also to further refine them according to the principles that define our freedoms.  Under the federalist model, that takes the following form:  the establishment and maintenance of our freedoms were among the key reasons for creating and sustaining our union.  We benefit from that arrangement and we owe our part in maintaining it for the future generations.  We, in other words, have the freedom to do what we should do; that is, to have a federalist view of liberty.  And we not only have a right to express that obligation, but also a duty to do so.  How’s that for a freedom message on Bastille Day?[2]

---

[1] See Taylor C.  (1985).  Philosophy and the human sciences:  Philosophical papers, vol. 2.  Cambridge, England:  Cambridge University Press.  Specific text found on pp. 197-198.

[2] To be clear, the French Revolution did not establish a federalist arrangement.

MR. CHIPS AIN’T SO BAD

Early in the history of this blog, I wrote an extended critique of the state of civics education in the US.  In sum, I reported that American students were low on certain measures:  political/governmental knowledge, political participation, and disposition toward political involvement.  In addition, they were high in levels of incivility and even criminality.  These conditions were qualified – e. g., American youth might be low in political involvement and knowledge but in some studies, they fared well when compared with the youth of other nations.  My overall claim was that there was a lot of room for improvement assuming the American public wanted, in general, high levels of political/governmental knowledge, political participation, civility, and law-abiding behavior.  While I reported these shortcomings, I, on more than one occasion, made it clear that I was not placing the blame for them on the doorstep of any one person or group of people.  I believe good schooling, including efforts in civics, is the responsibility of entire communities and that the complex chore of improving our instruction in that field, as well as in all of education, falls on the many.  It is important to state this today because one of the most maligned sectors of the American workforce is our teacher corps.

In a recent book, Dana Goldstein[1] reviews some of the most stated complaints of teachers and some of the proposed “reforms” aimed at fixing the problem posed by deficient teachers, and gives us an overall view that runs counter to what many of us hear from the mass media outlets.  I would like in this posting to list some of these findings in hopes of providing some sobering insights on the “teacher problem.”

Goldstein begins by giving credence to one critique of teachers:  they do not represent the most successful graduates from the most prestigious colleges and universities.  They, as a group, have on their resumes lower than average SAT scores.  Also, most engage in classroom activities that are primarily mechanical with a reliance on lectures, worksheets, and short evaluative exercises such as spelling tests.  At least one review of elementary teachers found these boring approaches as being typical instructional fare.  The aim seems to be mostly rote memory instead of analysis, synthesis, and problem solving which tend to be more engaging and more reflective of higher order thinking on the part of students.  Oh yes, and probably less boring.  But there are other research studies that give a more promising impression.

For example, in a recent study, teachers fared very favorably when compared to other American professionals in terms of a passion for their work.  This finding was offset by another one that found that the level of being “very satisfied” with their job was plummeting among teachers.  One wonders if some of this decline has to do with the recent attempts by school administrators and politicians to “fix” the teacher problem.  Of course, the nation of late has been going through some very meaningful challenges; primarily, challenges caused by the Great Recession.

Some context:  teachers in this country, once held in high esteem, have been subject to an array of criticism, much of it of a personal tone.  For example, Governor Chris Christie the other day described teachers as having a “good gig” in that they are paid a yearly salary and have so much time off as in the summer months.  I always thought of the summer break as two months of each year when I was unemployed unless I was fortunate enough to land a summer school job.  It’s all in how you see things, I guess, but there I was at home not receiving a paycheck.  When such a thing happened to my folks when I was a kid, things were tight and the future was doubtful.  I, at least, knew I had a job come September.  But the hidden message within the Governor’s comment is that teachers are getting away with something unseemly.  Really?

But that’s Christie, known for his over-the-top histrionics.  Is he the exception?  Here’s Goldstein’s take on what is generally out there in terms of public utterances:

Today the ineffective tenured teacher has emerged as a feared character, a vampiric type who sucks tax dollars into her bloated pension and health care plans, without much regard for the children under her care. … According to sociologists who study these events, in a moral panic, policy makers and the media focus on a single class of people (in our case, veteran public school teachers) as emblems of a large, complex social problem (socioeconomic inequality, as evidenced by educational achievement gaps).  Then the media repeats, ad nauseam, anecdotes about the most despicable examples of this type of person (such as “rubber room” teachers, who collect pay, sometimes for years, while awaiting termination hearings on accusations of corporal punishment or alcoholism).  This focus on the worst of the worst misrepresents the true scale and character of what may be a genuine problem.[2]

Then Goldstein proceeds to add some real context to what is being discussed.

For example, I believe most would be surprised to know that even in the worst urban, low income, conditions, as those found in New York or Los Angeles, those beleaguered teachers preside over some of the highest achievement level increases, as measured by achievement tests, in their region.  And the author makes a very telling observation:  these teachers are much more effective than the alternative, an ongoing cast of rotating teachers as would be the case if wholesale terminations were instituted or, as is often the case, replacing disheartened teachers who retire after only a few years in the classroom.

Goldstein runs through the list of “reforms” that have proven ineffective and have made things even worse because of the said attrition rate among teachers often caused by reforms.  Central to these efforts have been reforms to limit or do away with tenure programs.  I will address tenure in a future posting.  Let me preview that posting by stating generally that there are no giveaways.  Every practice instituted by the “system” has a reason and it’s not altruism or concern for the plight of teachers.

These comments are not specifically geared toward civics teachers.  They share in the problems that face the teacher corps.  What I would hope is that criticism of teaching in America not be personal or overgeneralized.  There are problems with teaching, but they are not of the type usually depicted or of the extreme nature described by the vocal critiques who now, in many cases, make a career of such efforts.  Oh, I guess the last statement has a personal edge to it – sorry!

---

[1] Goldstein, D.  (2014).  The teacher wars:  A history of America’s most embattled profession.  New York, NY:  Doubleday.

[2] Ibid., pp. 5-6.

IS THE PARTY OVER?

I have in this blog written of the function that political parties play in our political system.  Political parties are at that level of representation which funnels demands and supports, demands and supports not so much from individual citizens, who are represented by more specifically oriented groups, but from more collective entities.  These other groups are organizations and associations that solicit memberships among particular aggregates such as business people, laborers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and the like.  What political parties do is organize the demands and supports favored by these “lower” level groupings.  I have also, given the writing of E. E. Schattschneider,[1] described that the political party that represents the advantaged groups – successful business people, high salaried professionals, and the like – mainly provides a loose alignment to represent these factions’ common interests.  On the other hand, the party that represents lesser advantaged citizens – laborers, low income workers, low-skilled workers, indigent groups, etc. – provides the means by which its groups formulate stronger alliances among these respective groups.  Also thrown into the mix are very influential individuals. 

The stronger the union among the elements of a party are, the more the individual and/or group needs to compromise.  The easiest way to think of this is:  the more one has access to political resources – money, votes, expertise – the less one needs the help of others and, therefore, the less one needs to compromise.  Strong union means more compromise;  strong individual entities means less compromise.

But how does a party function in our current elections?  We have a presidential election on the horizon and an understanding of how our system works should include insight into the role parties play in the election process.  Daniel M. Shea provides a telling story:

[There was] an irate House candidate who complained to a local party leader about going it alone.  Why would the party be spending so much time and money helping the presidential candidate and offering no help to him?  The party leader answered back, “You see that big barge coming into the harbor?  Look behind, in the wake.  You see those logs, the junk and garbage being sucked along?  This year the president’s the ship and you’re the garbage.”[2]

Welcome to the world of politics.  With the upcoming presidential election approaching, civics teachers might use the performance of parties in the 2016 election to have students develop a better understanding of political parties.  Jeffrey M. Stonecash,[3] in his study of parties, identifies a list of factors that might help a teacher develop questions students can pursue.  The list includes:  correlation between “down-ballot” candidates and the presidential candidate (as alluded to in the above story), incumbency success rates, geographic location (e. g., the North vs. the South), partisanship loyalty levels, ideological biases, and strength of local party organization.  Each of these can be discussed as to meaning and historical viability in determining who wins and loses an election.  Stonecash’s study can provide assistance to teachers who want to consider these types of concerns.

As for Stonecash’s findings, his analysis indicates that correlations between presidential and House candidates, once quite high (hovering around .80), has not been nearly so high of late.  This lack of connection means that political parties are not producing winners.  To the extent this is true, political parties do not serve as funnels; that is, they are not functioning to generate compromises.  Without compromises, or at least enough of them, then the government cannot issue the policies to meet current demands.  Instead, geographic location seems to have strengthened significantly.  We have areas that are steeply ensconced in policy positions and the growing sentiment that compromise is somewhat illegitimate.  Often, positions are associated with cultural commitments and/or religious commitments.  The positive side to all of this is that voters do not seem to be blindly following the dictates of party leaders any longer.  On the other side, policy compromises are harder to find.  Have media – Limbaugh, Fox, MSNBC – been filling-in the gap created with the lessening of party influence?  Using the results in the upcoming election might add some information to our current state of voting and, if any, shifts among the electorate.  The party is not over; parties will continue to serve essential roles and functions – they organize a lot of what we call politics.  But as a meaningful funnel of demands and supports, a facilitator of compromise, one is justified to ask what its role will be as the coming years go by.  Will 2016 foreshadow more impasse with Congress and the President or a more promising future?

---

[1] Schattschneider, E. E.  (1960).  The semi-sovereign people:  A realist’s view of democracy in America.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

[2] Shea, D. M.  (2015).  Book Review of Party Pursuits and the Presidential-House Electoral Connection 1900-2008,  Political Science Quarterly, 130 (1), Spring, pp. 134-136, quotation on p. 134.

[3] Stonecash, J. M.  (2013).  Party pursuits and the presidential-House electoral connection 1900-2008.  New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press.

A NEWER CHAOS

With the Greek financial crisis and the possible termination of that nation’s membership in the ill-defined European Union,[1] the state of the international order is precarious at best.  Gone is the relatively stable, albeit dangerous, international arena of the Cold War.  The great powers are presently losing their ability to establish order and that includes the United States.  So says international relations expert, Randall L. Schweller, in his recently published book, Maxwell’s Demon And the Golden Apple:  Global Discord in the New Millennium.[2]  That world of international actors seems to be spiraling into chaos or, at least, a more chaotic state.  While I must admit my lack of expertise in this area, it is one civics teachers should address.  Schweller’s book is a source that can assist teachers in that effort.

This increasing chaos is a newer sort of disruption.  Despite the tensions between Russia and the Western democracies over Ukraine and the Baltic states – where Russia is making noises of expansion over stated perceptions of NATO expansion – Schweller does not foresee war between super powers as likely.  What Schweller is more concerned about is the entropy of power due to the array of international actors that now dot that landscape.  Added to this is the deterioration of US hegemony in relation to these actors.  He describes this condition as:  “erratic, unsettled, and devoid of behavioral regularities.” (p. ix)  His description includes: 

… new actors – regional and global organizations, local militias, global crime and terrorist networks, nongovernmental organizations, and large corporations – are emerging to compete with states, each exerting a different kind of power …[3]

On a recent car trip, I listened to a BBC broadcast in which a woman was being interviewed.  She described how she, here in the US, was lured into believing the propaganda of ISIS.  Apparently, ISIS operatives have become quite skilled in using social media platforms to establish intimate relations with would-be converts, preying on the subjects’ insecurities and social isolations.  As described, these efforts, seemed quite sophisticated.  We do know that terrorist groups have been able to recruit significant numbers of fighters for their aggressions in Syria and Iraq.  The array of volunteers does not fit a simple profile.  There are the social misfits, but there are also those who seem to have been leading successful lives.  Motivations among these recruits vary and this, in turn, makes addressing the problem that more difficult.  In any event, civics teachers should be concerned that before them might be potential converts to fundamentalist allure of Islamic extremists as well as extremists of other persuasions.  Included in this list of potential recruiters can be hate groups or extreme ideologically-bent groups.  What seems to be losing its grip is the uniting force provided by nation-state legitimacy, at least, in relative terms.

Perceived dysfunction among state entities does not mean only a lack of satisfactory governmental services.  Dysfunction of this type creates vacuums – political vacuums – and these will be filled.  How?  The case of chaotic forces as described above can and, in the extreme, will demonstrate how those vacuums will be filled.

---

[1] Ill-defined in that the union has limited governmental authority in financial matters.  The Union has no central bank, for example.

[2] Schweller, R. L.  (2014).  Maxwell’s demon and the golden apple:  Global discord in the new millennium.  Baltimore, MD:  John Hopkins University Press.  For a informative review of this book see Kirshner, J.  (2015).  Book review.  Political Science Quarterly, 130 (1), Spring, pp. 133-134.

[3] Ibid., p. 55.

NOT DOING ONE’S PART

Central to the aims of this blog is to promote a federalist construct – liberated federalism – to guide the curricular choices that civics educators make.  Why?  Because federalism, at its core, stands for the power of collectives.  Collectives get things done efficiently.  Forming collectives is a way to pool the resources of various parties, be they individuals or other collectives.  They open up possible projects out of the reach of individuals.  But anyone who has ever been part of a collective – and that’s all of us – has been frustrated by the obstacles that collectives encounter.  Sometimes the obstacles are just part of the challenge a project presents, but other times they are the product of having to deal with others.  I have presented the progression – groups, organizations, associations – before, as a way to point out that collectives vary in degrees of bonding among their members.  As our experiences within our family and other social groupings indicate, the level to which the members feel affinity for each other will affect how successfully the particular collective functions.  The higher the affinity, the more likely that success is achieved.

Affinity is, in turn, affected by the levels of trust that exist, the communication patterns enjoyed among members, clear roles, and respect.  Surely, as collectives grow in size, affinity becomes a harder quality to secure.  Knowing those you are dealing with ups the chances you will care about them and be willing to cooperate in your mutual efforts.  There are probably other factors, but I believe you get the idea.  But in addition to intergroup dynamics, there are other factors:  resource availability, legitimacy of intent, timing, and so on.  Let me focus on one such problem area:  free-rider or cheap-rider.

Again, I have written about the free-rider problem before.  But this posting is more in regard to how free-riding affects the efforts of collectives.  This concern has been brought to my attention in an article by Andrew B. Kennedy.[1] He gives an analysis of the extent that China is a free-rider when it comes to contributing to collective, international efforts to secure and maintain open sea passages from piracy, especially in transporting oil, and in fighting terrorism.  China benefits from international policing, but the question remains whether China contributes in terms of financing or applying actual military assets which would be mostly naval assets.  Kennedy claims China does provide some assistance and is limited in its capacity to contribute, but that it could do more.  In such cases, one does not have free-riding, but cheap-riding.  What are the consequences of such “cheapness?”  In either case, being free or cheap leads to mistrust and resentment.

This whole treatment of the free-rider problem reminded me of my classroom experiences.  I often assigned group work and a lot of my time was taken up by devising ways to make each member of a group accountable for helping rather than just riding along and getting credit for the work of others.  This is apparently part of the human condition:  a significant number of people will tend to enjoy the labor of others and not feel sufficiently compelled to contribute to that labor if they don’t have to.  It is equally part of the human condition to resent providing labor that benefits those who don’t contribute.  Be it nations or just any social group, people will tend to feel as if they are being taken advantage of if this type of asymmetry exists and they are on the working end of the relationship.

As for civics, this whole train of questions as to whether a particular party benefits from the efforts of others is worth asking.  Not to give credence to the charges of Tea Party types, but I believe a lot of the motivation for their efforts is to rectify the level of assistance that is given to those who accept welfare but don’t do their share of the work that permits our public policy to provide the assistance.  Of course, this is overstated; it might be a rationalization of their resentment for paying the taxes that pay for the assistance.  We can’t ignore that this line of argument does readily garner agreement among many.  This seems to indicate that at times this whole problem of free-rider can be a “slogan” for those who want to welch on their responsibilities to meet the challenges that providing for the general welfare present.  If the aim is to promote federalist values, problems such as free-rider or cheap-rider need to be addressed and students should work to devise solutions to this problem.  This is true whether we are considering those cases where there is actual shirking of responsibility or where there are manufactured cases of such shirking.

---

[1] Kennedy, A. B.  (2015).  China and the free-rider problem:  Exploring the case of energy security.  Political Science Quarterly, 130 (1), Spring, pp. 27-50.

I TAKE THIS PERSON

Let me make an argument.

Dicta:

          Since the state of homosexuality is biologically determined

          Since there exists no credible evidence that the raising of children is negatively impacted by whether their parents are gay/lesbian or straight

          Since the gay/lesbian community has overwhelmingly indicated that it defines its individual happiness is enhanced by being able to participate in the institution of marriage and enjoy all of its related rights

          Since existing state laws in several states interfere with gays and lesbians legally getting married and engaging in marital related activities – such as adopting children

          Since the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and includes protection when any discriminatory practices are based on beliefs that deny the nature of those discriminated against (e. g., laws that discriminated against blacks’ civil rights because they were black)

Conclusion:

          Therefore, state laws that prohibit gay and lesbian marriages are unconstitutional and, by decree of the Supreme Court, shall be void as enforceable law

Warrant:

          Because the Supreme Court is the last arbiter as to whether federal or state law is constitutional or not[1]

Backing:

          As established by several precedents such as Marbury vs. Madison and Ware vs. Hylton.

          As established by the fact that federal justices of the United States are sworn, in their official capacity, to uphold the U. S. Constitution as prescribed in Article VI.

I make this argument because I hear from the opponents of the current decision by the Supreme Court to strike down state laws against marriage equality as a usurpation of state prerogative to determine whether these laws should be changed or the prerogative of the federal government through the actions of Congress and/or the President.  I would dare say that this latter course – a federal legislative approach – if taken, would have been criticized because the Constitution does not delegate the necessary power(s) to the central government to legislate the laws governing marriages – unless someone could define marriage as an interstate commerce activity.  Be that as it may, I just saw this opportunity as a legitimate way to provide a current example of how Stephen Toulmin’s[2] argument model can be used.  I cited the Toulmin model in the last posting and a previous one.  Civics teachers, I have been saying, can use this model and some ideas about rhetoric to review presidential election debates.  While I invite any criticism of the soundness of my argument, here is an example of the Toulmin model being used on a constitutional question.

---

[1] I could add another warrant:  civil tranquility is enhanced by respecting the individual rights of citizens and cite, as backing, the cases in which disrespect has led to civil disruption.

[2]  Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.

PROCESS OF ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT

Have you heard any of the speeches that presidential hopefuls used to announce their individual campaigns for the White House?  I found Donald Trump’s entertaining; I found Hillary Clinton’s and Jeb Bush’s thoughtful.  In every case, they were exercises in rhetoric.  As I pointed out in a recent posting, they were primarily efforts to convince listeners and enlist supporters.  They were not primarily meant to share truth.  Oh, they might be based on truth claims – they might not be – but truth sharing is not their primary purpose.  They were attempts at exhortation and/or dissuasion as is the case in political debate.  I base these observations on the notes on rhetoric by Richard A. Lanham.[1]  In this posting, I want to ask another question of an argument:  what is the underlying process upon which the argument is based?

The process revolves around two sub-concerns:  one, the argument’s main support and, two, its reliance on the particular mental operation it uses to arrive at its conclusion(s).  In this posting, I am first looking at the use of supports.  Below, I address mental operations. 

A teacher can ask civics students to determine what support a politician uses to convince his/her audience of the conclusion he/she is proposing.  Supports come in two classifications:  real and synthetic. 

Real support refers to evidence such as eyewitness accounts, documents, scientific reports or analysis, and laws.  They are factually based claims about reality.  These supports can be linked to Stephen Toulmin’s[2] dictum statements in his model for reasoned argument.  For example, in the conclusion that Paolo is Catholic, a support might be the fact that Paolo is Italian.  In itself, it does not prove the conclusion, but when added to other testimony, it can support the conclusion. 

On the other hand, there is synthetic support.  By using the term synthetic, I do not want to say the support is necessarily untrue or unreal.  It is a statement of reality not logically supportive of the conclusion or it does not sufficiently prove the conclusion.  In our Paolo example, if I say that he is Catholic because I say so and I am of good reputation or good character, then this argument is based on a synthetic support. 

Argument based on the good name of its advocate is what the Greeks called “ethos.”  There is also “pathos” which is support emanating from being seduced by a pleasant mood or positive feelings.  I am encouraged to believe Paolo is Catholic because I am Catholic and I like Paolo and I would like to believe his afterlife is more secure if he is Catholic.  A use of good feeling can be within the content of the argument to increase the likelihood of its acceptance. 

Then there is the argument that sounds like it is based on a logical proof but does not meet the requirements of a logical argument:  I know Paolo is Catholic because I saw him attend a Catholic mass.  This is a synthetic support known as logos; that is, while the proof here is based on a real support statement – Paolo attended a mass – it is not enough to make the logical conclusion that he is Catholic and therefore, the overall support is synthetic and deemed illogical.  Any time an argument strives to be accepted by sounding logical but falling short, the rhetorical device of logos is being used. 

Again, a rhetorical device does not make the conclusion false, but if the device is synthetic, it is illogical or artificial argumentation.  Yet while illogical, the use of ethos, pathos, and logos are all used to convince the listener of the conclusion and not to necessarily share a truthful argument. 

To emphasize, the use of rhetoric does not necessarily mean the conclusion is invalid; it simply means the use of it is aimed at logically or illogically securing support.  At times, the conclusion can be valid; at times, it can be invalid, but whether it is or isn’t is not its author’s main concern.

The second concern is over the mental operations the argument demands in order to follow its “proof.”  Here we are on more familiar ground.  There are two mental operations:  inductive and deductive reasoning. 

I will refer you again to Toulmin’s model which I believe in effect combines both operations.  By relying on dictum statements, one’s main concern in inductive reasoning is whether there are enough dictum statements to account for all the incidents relevant to the conclusion or if the support for the conclusion is based on a partial number of incidents.  This is an inductive reasoning issue and is associated with pathos described above.  Maria is Italian and Catholic; Carlo is Italian and Catholic; are those enough cases to logically prove the case that Paolo is Catholic?  Obviously not, but that is the concern when thinking inductively.

In terms of deduction, the concern is whether the warrant statement – the claim that establishes the relevance of the dictum statements to the conclusion – is conclusive or only probable in its assertion.  Careful; I am referring here to the warrant statement, not dictum statements or conclusions.  The claim, for example, that all Italians are Catholic is a generalization – linking the fact that Paolo is Italian with the conclusion he is Catholic.  As stated, the assertion – the warrant statement – is conclusive (but not true).  Offering an alternative warrant claim, the overwhelming number of Italians are Catholic is a qualified generalization which makes the conclusion probable – Paolo is probably Catholic – and true.  These are the determinations one looks for when analyzing inductive reasoning.

For each of these elements, at least one analyzing question is suggested and teachers can devise them so that students can analyze the rhetorical quality of presidential candidates’ speeches and other statements and that of their campaigns.  They can also be used for any political argumentation.  For example, we hear today that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the tradition and heritage of the South and not a symbol of hatred or of the belief that whites are superior to blacks.  My question is what dictum statements can such an argument use to support this conclusion?  The press is reporting many in the South believe in this conclusion, but I haven’t heard any dictum statements to back it up.  I have heard of documentary evidence that it does represent, to the extent it represents the Confederate States of America, the belief that whites are superior to blacks.  One is constantly faced with argumentation of all kinds.  Political argumentation makes up much of what is reported on the news.  Hopefully, these ideas on rhetoric will help our students study these rhetorical arguments and form judgments as to their viability and veracity.

---

[1] Lanham, R. A.  (1969).  A handlist of rhetorical terms:  A guide for students of English literature.  Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.

[2] Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.  See posting for May 5, 2015, The Structure of An Argument or Two.