On February 13 of this year, electronic devices across the US were, according to the hype of the day, focused on the beginning of the second season of the Netflix original hit, “House of Cards.” Stories abounded concerning plans people were making for “binge parties,” as some viewers prepared for day and night long watching of as many of the thirteen episodes as they could absorb at one go.
What do we make of Frank and Claire Underwood, a power couple who ruthlessly use and manipulate people on their relentless quest for the top of the Washington power pyramid? One of the fascinations of this series could be that it seems “realistic”—and that is quite an indictment of our view of the American political system. Many of the sinuous sub-plots do seem to reflect real-life issues and machinations of the current state of political maneuvering “inside the Beltway.”
Clearly, most of the characters depicted in the “House of Cards” exhibit the antithesis of what we mean by ethical public argument. They provide useful negative illustrations of ethical argument. Lets go back to the beginning—Plato and Aristotle first laid down some of the basics in this regard. Plato, recall, was a student of Socrates, while Aristotle attended Plato’s school, known as The Academy. Plato, reflecting his teacher’s beliefs, seems to have regarded persuasive argument (coining, probably, the term “rhetoric” for its name) as inherently unethical, or nearly so. The reason was the orator usually aims at winning (a case, an election, an argument), whereas the truly ethical person should use speech solely to improve the listeners, to make them better people. Later in life, Plato held out hope that there could be ethical public discourse, but it would be pretty rare. Aristotle, who literally “wrote the book” on what we call public persuasion (rhetoric) accepted that persuasion was a tool that could be used for good or evil and concentrated more than Plato on teaching the craft itself. Still, he maintained that the character of the speaker was probably the most important element in effectiveness of such public address.
It is safe to say that the Underwoods and most of the rest of the characters in “House of Cards”—and perhaps most of those in the public field today—do not come close to meeting the original standards set forth by the founders of public persuasion, Plato and Aristotle. They are not concerned with what is best for the listeners, for the public, but with furthering their own station in the political game. And, it would seem this is what we have come to expect and to accept of our real life policy makers and elected representatives. Consider the journalistic coverage of elections these days. Most such coverage is described as “horse-race” coverage, meaning that the election contest is reduced to the events and strategies related solely to winning and losing, rather than to coverage of the policy differences between candidates and to analysis of those policies. Politics is treated as another sport. Attention on “gridlock” in the Congress similarly is treated as a contest. Clearly, the two sides are not concerned with legislation for the public good, but with scoring points and setting up for the next election (the next game).
Casting political argument as sport simplifies television and other media coverage. It is easier to keep “score” than to delve into in-depth analysis of policy. Another unfortunate result of the coverage and of our expectations is that personal attacks are judged more effective than substantive argument. And such attacks allow for brief televised spots, “attack ads.” The side with the most financial resources, of course, can fund more such ads. In the second season of “House of Cards,” several crucial episodes deal with a sudden increase of money flowing to the opponents of the administration of which Frank Underwood is a part. The clear understanding is that money—not policy or reasoning based on evidence—is all that is necessary to swing elections in our contemporary political arena.
It is clear that people concerned for ethical public argumentation face a significant challenge.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
