1887
Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article reflects on the reasonableness of populist arguments supporting a prescriptive standpoint in the context of deliberation (which I call ‘deliberative’ populist arguments). A literature survey shows a divide between authors who claim that populist arguments are always fallacious and those who think that in some situations they can be reasonable, including the context of political deliberation. It is then argued that deliberative populist arguments are based on a linking premise that appeals to majority opinion as a principle of democracy. This linking premise differs from the one underlying the traditional interpretation of a fallacious populist argument () and appears at first sight to make the argument reasonable. However, I conclude that a deliberative populist argument is also unreasonable, because it acts merely as a trump card, creating a false impression about democracy and avoiding engagement in real debate and substantive reasons.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17028.jan
2020-12-17
2021-05-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, C.
    1979 The place of principles in policy analysis. The American Political Science Review, 73(3), 711–723. 10.2307/1955399
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1955399 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andone, C.
    2015 Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 15, 13pp. Retrieved from: https://aad.revues.org/2021#tocto1n3
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation, 30, 45–60. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9372‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9372-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buruma, I.
    4September 2019 Britain’s enemy of the people?Project Syndicate. Retrieved from: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/boris-johnson-enemy-of-the-people-by-ian-buruma-2019-09
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook, F. Lomax , Barabas, J. , and Page, B. I.
    2002 Invoking public opinion. Policy elites and social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 235–264. 10.1086/340025
    https://doi.org/10.1086/340025 [Google Scholar]
  6. Copi, I. M. , and Cohen, C.
    1990Introduction to Logic, 8th ed.New York/London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dedrick, D.
    2019 Is an appeal to popularity a fallacy of popularity?Informal Logic, 39(2), 147–167. 10.22329/il.v39i2.5101
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i2.5101 [Google Scholar]
  8. van Eemeren, F. H.
    2010Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  9. van Eemeren, F. H. , Garssen, B. , and Meuffels, B.
    2009Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R.
    1992Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJetc.: Erlbaum Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. van Eemeren, F. H. , and Grootendorst, R.
    2004A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. van Eemeren, F. H. , and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    2016Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation (2nd rev. ed.) New York/London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315401140
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401140 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellwanger, A.
    2017 Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse. Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(3), 181–198. 10.1080/00028533.2017.1337330
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1337330 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fishkin, J. S.
    2009When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gallup, G. and Rae, S. F.
    1968 The pulse of democracy. The public-opinion poll and how it works. New York: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Godden, D.
    2008 On common knowledge and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129. 10.1353/par.0.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0000 [Google Scholar]
  17. Govier, T.
    2010A practical study of argument, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth). Retrieved from: www.kalabakas.dk/files/Books/A%20Practical%20Study%20of%20Argument.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. de Gruyter, C.
    31August 2019 Democratische schade door referendum (Democratic damage through referendum). NRC Handelsblad, p.10. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/08/30/democratische-schade-door-referendum-a3971694
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gutman, A. and Thompson, D.
    2004Why deliberative democracy?Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826339
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826339 [Google Scholar]
  20. Harrison, T. R.
    1995 Are public opinion polls used illegitimately? 47% say yes. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Holzinger, K. , Reinhard, J. , and Biesenbender, J.
    2014 Do arguments matter? Argumentation and negotiation success at the 1997 Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 283–307. 10.1017/S1755773913000064
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000064 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hornikx, J.
    2013 Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit. Het ad populum-argument onder de loep. [A Bayesian perspective to argument quality. The ad populum argument under scrutiny]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 35(2), 128–143. 10.5117/TVT2013.2.HORN
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2013.2.HORN [Google Scholar]
  23. Herman, T. & Oswald, S.
    (forthcoming). Everybody knows that there is something odd about ad populum arguments. In R. Boogaart , H. Jansen , & M. van Leeuwen Eds. The language of argumentation. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jansen, H.
    2019 De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie [The role of the standpoint in the assessment of ad populum argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41, 143–157. 10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS [Google Scholar]
  25. Jansen, H. and van Leeuwen, M.
    2021 The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1). 10.1075/jaic.20020.jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20020.jan [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, R. H. , and Blair, J. A.
    2006Logical Self-Defense. New Yorketc.: Idea Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kahane, H.
    1984, Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the uses of logic in everyday life (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kienpointner
    2003 Populistische Topik. Zu einigen rhetorischen Strategien Jörg Haiders. Rhetorik, 21(1), 119–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Minot, W. S.
    1981 A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11, 222–235. 10.1080/02773948109390615
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773948109390615 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mudde, C. , and Rovira Kaltwasser, C.
    2017Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Müller, J. W.
    2016What is populism?Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9780812293784
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812293784 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nolt, J. E.
    1984Informal logic. Possible worlds and imagination. New York,etc.: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 10.22329/il.v6i2.2728
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v6i2.2728 [Google Scholar]
  33. Oswald, S. , and Hart, C.
    2013 Trust based on bias: Cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies. In D. Mohammed and M. Lewínski (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 13pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rawls, J.
    1999A theory of justice (Revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Reisigl, M.
    2006 The dynamics of right-wing populist argumentation in Austria. In: F. H. van Eemeren , J. A. Blair , C. A. Willard and B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Shapiro, R. Y.
    2011 Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982–1017. 10.1093/poq/nfr053
    https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr053 [Google Scholar]
  37. Skinner, G.
    4September 2019 An election is on the cards. So what do the polls tell us?The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/04/election-polls-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Taggart, P.
    2000Populism. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tindale, C. W.
    2007Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridgeetc.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511806544
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806544 [Google Scholar]
  40. Toulmin, S. , Rieke, R. D. , and Janik, A.
    1984An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Walton, D. N.
    1992The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1999Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Walton, D. N. , Reed, C. , and Macagno, F.
    2008Argumentation schemes. Cambridgeetc.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  45. Weale, A.
    2018The will of the people. A modern myth. Cambridge/Madford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Yankelovich, D.
    1991Coming to public judgment. Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17028.jan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.17028.jan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error