And Kaufer Saves The Day!

After the state of the union address this past Tuesday, Obama’s comments about gun violence elicited many responses- responses that The New Yorker was no afraid to provide. An article, written by Amy Davidson, focuses on the tension that exists between Obama and the Republicans during the address about the exact topic that has been smarting for the past couple months. Davidson asserts her idea that Obama’s main concern during the state of the union address was gun control. Davidson’s argument seems ethical enough, but when looking closely at her diction and choice of topics- is it really?

Jones likes to specify that an ethical argument focuses on grounded reasoning, forfeiting it’s need to rely on fallacies. Kaufer, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to connect the rhetor’s argument with his/her values in order to pass any judgment of ethics or solutions. Concerning these idea, Davidson’s argument is sound- which, for a Magazine that is so often known for its leftist and liberal tendencies, may be surprising to some. Davidson explains, quite explicitly at times, how Obama’s stance on guns and control is vestige of his overarching concerns for fairness and safety. She also explains how this clashes with the republican values of tradition. Davidson’s article may stray off topic towards the middle, focusing on other parts of Obama’s speech rather than the idea of gun control, but her argument remains sound. She presents both sides of the argument, does not utilize words that may incite emotions, and does not overly rely on one cannons. If her text was reduced to its skeleton, and Jones suggests, it would still be able to stand.

One word that perpetuated Davidson’s article was her use of the word “gun control.” If anything would elicit concern about her ethics, it would be the connotations attached to the use of that single world. In a very subtle and sneaky way, it can work to undermine a person’s preconceived notions. This is analogous to McGee’s idea of ideographs- and in this case, the ideograph “gun control” stands for the values of caring and safety. By constantly repeating the word in this context (although there is no feasible alternative), Davidson can do much to sway your opinion on gun control laws. Does that make it unethical- or good, tactful argumentation?

I encountered a similar situation as Davidson the other day, when I was doing a very girly thing and was shopping. My friend was on the hunt for a long sleeved dress for a wedding, which is apparently a very hard clothing option to find in the middle of winter. Alas, I found a long sleeved dress- and fell in love with it right away. I was unable to give the dress up to my friend, who actually needed it. She argued that she was the one who had a use for the dress, and I argued that I had seen it first and It was, therefore, mine. After a while, I was able to identify just why this argument happened: my friends valued the practicality of the dress, while I valued the idea of owning something so beautiful. After recognizing this, I was able to come to a solution- My friend could borrow the dress for the wedding, as long as it was returned to my closet afterwards. This appeased both factions, and the day was saved!

Jones and Kaufer’s ideas on public policy and its argumentation are valuable not only in a political sense, but also in daily life. And any day I can relate Obama’s concerns to those of a 20-something girl shopping for a dress, I am a happy girl!