Getting to stasis: Why so freaking hard?

CONTEXT

Stasis in rhetoric is a systematic method for analyzing arguments and identifying the key point of disagreement in any debate or controversy. The term derives from the Greek word meaning "standstill" or "conflict," referring to the point where an argument must be resolved for discussion to either reach a resolution of disagreement or a point of understanding why disagreement remains. Points of disagreement that cannot be resolved often, probably usually, are grounded in conflicting definitions of concepts. Trying to reach stasis is valuable for political disagreements because it is a way to begin to talk more calmly, more rationally, about any dispute, by uncovering the ways people talk past each another. That helps people actually address the real issues.

This post illuminates the stasis issue using the Abe Lincoln debates with Stephen Douglas. FWIW, Lincoln won the debate but lost the election.

In the 1990s, political rhetoric from the right sounded more and more like nonsense. By November 1998, that prompted my serious dive into politics. It was a quest to understand why I often could not understand what those people were saying. Well now I know. They speak or appeal to things like intuitions, emotions, unconscious cognitive biases, and social loyalties to tribe or ideology. Back then I didn't speak primarily to those things. Still don't.

Speaking different political languages makes getting to stasis hard. So does the often present plague of You can't handle the truth! I call it moral cowardice. 

An example

A few other folks have the same issue. Here's an example from the ProfsBlawg, where lawyers commentate and whatnot. Lindsey Halligan is the utterly inexperienced and grossly unqualified MAGA lawyer that Trump "dubiously appointed" to abuse federal law in pursuit of his alleged enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Adam Schiff. 

Beyond conclusions

Anna Bowers has an unbelievable Lawfare piece about her text exchanges with dubiously appointed EDVa US Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Halligan initiated contact with Bowers out of the blue to complain about Halligan retweeting a NYT story on the Letitia James indictment and then to retroactively take the exchange off the record.

The exchange captures what I hate about exchanges between reporters and public officials, especially attorneys–it never gets beyond conclusions, whining, and insults. Halligan repeatedly tells Bowers her reporting is inaccurate but never (despite Bower’s repeated requests) explains why. When Halligan requests details–more than conclusions–Halligan insults her and her reporting with more unsupported conclusions (you’re biased, you’ll be completely discredited, you don’t report fairly). Bowers pushed back and demanded more detail rather than letting the conclusions stand; that pushed Halligan to more whining and insults, before making a demand that no reporter would grant and that no competent public official would make.

Halligan’s conclusory responses–conclude, repeat talking points, insult–resemble what we hear from Trump and other government people every day. Bowers’s pushback distinguishes this from every news conference and talk-show interview, exposing the vacuousness of the conversation.

Qs: See why it's hard to get to stasis? See why I call the difficulty of facing reality as a matter of moral cowardice? See why MAGA rhetoric doesn't make sense most of the time?