I Agree, But...I Disagree.."

In “I Agree, But…” James McDonald describes citizenship, as “individuals become citizens by discursively- and thus rhetorically-engaging one another in the public sphere. “ Its a way for people to share their viewpoints or concerns for an issue with people that may disagree with them.  He also describes public deliberation, as “citizens who have opposing views on issues can explain the foundations of their beliefs.” He doesn’t stop there though. He uses public deliberation as a way to discuss an issue and come up with new ways to solve a problem by allowing the two parties discussing the issue to understand each other’s ideas more and come up with a new solution that maybe isn’t so black and white.  McDonald uses the Le Suroit case to describe his versions of deliberation and citizenship because it was a case study that showed them pretty brilliantly. Le Suroit is a sociotechnical controversy in Canada revolving around whether or not they should allow The Suroit natural gas-fired electrical plant to be constructed.

McDonald shows how the pro-Suroit supporters and the anti-Suroit supporters used rhetorical situations in their arguments to get their adversaries to understand where they are coming from and to keep them from knocking down their major points.  He explains that the best way to approach a situation in an argument is to accept some of the opinions of your opponent while still making it clear that you disagree overall on the situation. This helps to come up with an overall solution knowing that both parties can agree on something and it also keeps your opponent from going on and on about their ideas.  For example, in the Le Suroit controversy, when discussing alternatives, the pro-Suroit supporters made it a point to say that they were already supporters of wind energy but that it was an unreliable source, which in turn made the anti-Suroit supporters in need of a new argument.

David Kaufer has own way to deliberate public policy. He first mentions stock issues and that they, “aid invention by helping speakers single out from the list of stock issues those obtaining in the immediate case; aid organization by insure speakers against omitting information; aid adaptation of speech to audiences by guiding speakers to include points the audiences expect them to address.”  He has created five different hierarchical levels of policy conflict: level one, one of us misunderstands the intended sense or reference of certain statements; level two, we misunderstand each other’s intended frame of reference in making certain statements; level three, we each give decisive weight to different evidence; level four, we hold conflicting local values (values people hold about specific topics); and level five, we hold conflicting global values (values people hold systematically across topics and contexts). He explains that you start with level one and work your way up to five until you have fully resolved the issue at hand.

Kaufer uses the example of the drinking age (18 vs 21). Usually people have equally worthy points and since those points will never override one or the other, he uses a similar idea to McDonald. Kaufer uses a similar idea to teen drinking being a responsibility like driving and makes them both into a positive. He also shows the negative point and compares the teen drinking to drag races.

Kaufer combines his stock issues with his new five level theory of policy conflict to teach students the most efficient way to argue a situation. The five level theory gives the students the opportunity to create a more creative solution to the problem by having to work through a few levels to see the most beneficial outcome to a problem. The stock issues alone don’t do that. Just as Kaufer has his five level theory, McDonald uses his rhetorical practice to of agreeing to key opinions to show people how efficiently that works. He shows that just saying “you’re wrong,” doesn’t have the same affect as saying “I understand your point, but…” or “I understand my flaws, but…” because those two statements will stop the opponent from pointing our your flaws if you do so yourself already. Then, your opponents will need to come up with a new strategy to make your argument weaker. McDonald’s “accepting key ideas” is similar to Kaufer’s level 5 of his levels of policy conflict. They both agree to disagree and know that one wont win over the other necessarily but they find a new way to come up with a solution that they may both agree on partially.