In chapter two of Winning Arguments, titled “Political Arguments,” author Stanley Fish goes in depth on the state of modern politics, namely, why political discourse is often extremely polarizing.
The first reason Fish accredits for our divisive politics is the ever presence of spin agents: that is to say, orators who attempt to make their arguments stick by presenting the world in such a way that their agenda makes sense. He clarifies that, although the term may hold negative connotations, there is no alternative: “the discourses that are available are all spun, and, what is worse, there is no neutral space from the vantage point of which the varieties of spin can be inventoried and assessed” (“Political Arguments”). Whether this information comes from a friend or a newscaster, the opinions and agenda of the speaker will always influence the information they reveal and how they reveal it. This has the result of leading listeners to form their political identity based on from whom they receive their information.
A second reason is that political arguments have been condensed into flashy talking points to grab and hold the reader’s attention. Talking points are short phrases which lack any substantive merit in their ability to convince an opponent, but sound objectively good. In Fish’s words, they exist to “score points; you wield them like weapons; you say, “Take that,” to which the other guy says, “No, you take that” (Political Arguments). The problem with talking points is that they can only convince people who are already supporters of the argument that they are in the right; in effect, this leads to people who become adamant in the support of a spin agent’s argument, and less likely to consider alternate opinions.
Fish warns of growing intolerance in the political world, as these tactics, which have been around as long as the public has been involved in politics, will only become more useful as social media and instant news becomes increasingly widespread.
