Presidential Debates and the Failure of Argument

My Humanities class recently finished discussion of Antigone, a play by Sophocles that has more than one tragic hero in it and plenty of bloodshed, though the bloodshed is done off stage, of course. The class we are reading this play in is concerned with great works, but we don't stay on tragedy for very long. We study this play as a prelude to studying writers in ancient Athens who were concerned with making speeches and whether or not oratory was really an art. After Sophocles, we moved on to a sophist named Gorgias, and now we are reading Plato and Aristotle on rhetoric. 

We began with Sophocles, the ancient dramatist, because I have a theory that Antigone, or at least Sophocles' version of it, is concerned with rhetoric. In addition to being concerned with the hubris of the title character and with Creon, her uncle, this is a play about persuasion. More to the point, it is a play about the failure of persuasion. 

I am not alone in this view. A few other writers have noted the way that argument is undercut in the play. There are also similarities between the arguments presented in the play and the early theories on persuasion and logos attributed to sophists like Protagoras and Gorgias. Few have made much of these theories, but they are there and offer a critique of the early polis of primitive democracy in Athens. 

Antigone Among Sophists 

The play concerns Antigone's attempt to give her dead brother, who has turned traitor against Thebes, the ceremonial burial that all families must perform for their fallen kin. Complicating her action is a new decree by Creon, who has ordered that no traitor to the city shall be given a burial. 

This plot sets up a larger conflict between the state and the gods, between dictates or laws established by government and the requirements of family and home. It is clear what side of this ancient debate Sophocles is on. Also clear are the questions he seems to raise about the possibility for consensus and the power of argument in a city that is divided along these secular and sacred lines. In the play, first Antigone, and then later Haimon and Tiresias come forward and argue with the resolute Creon, but no one listens to the other. 

In the end, there are three suicides and one broken old man. 

Debates on TV

The failure of argument is not merely a phenomenon of ancient cultures. It has been on prominent display as well in various media outlets in recent months. With the presidential election in full swing, there are plenty of slogans and bumper sticker accusations being flung back and forth, and while these may count as persuasion, they aren't really examples of sustained argument. If nothing else, talking to friends, neighbors, and colleagues in an election year reminds us that we are in a culture war, and observing how argument and persuasion play out in this "war" could perhaps suggest to some brilliant contemporary writer the material for another tragedy. 

The presidential debate the other night between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump might be cast as something more, and something less, than debate. In recent years, many viewers have come to expect not a debate or a set of reasoned propositions on a series of policies, with a measured set of refutations and counterarguments, but a carefully staged public relations stunt. Many have been the debates I've watched in recent years where both candidates used the moderator's questions to switch the subject to whatever talking point they wanted to give air time to. 

The other night, the moderator's questions were sometimes little more than triggers for the release of deep animosity. There wasn't much patience for reason or for argument. Statements of policy or conviction were often countered with insult or accusation. 

Is this the failure of argument? 

No Endorsements 

The truth is that argument was hardly evidenced the other night. There were attempts to avoid answering questions, there were interruptions, there were accusations and smears. But there was little sustained argument. Like Creon, who claims that he will not listen to women, young men, or the elderly, our candidates did not hear each other out. Worse, in reading responses after the debate and listening to people talk and post on social media (not a scientific sample, I know), it was easy to get the impression that we are way beyond the possibility now of an honest exchange of views. People have remained entrenched in the views they held before the "debates," so many of us saw our own champion winning. Victory was mainly based on who "looked presidential," whatever that is supposed to mean. 

One of the candidates did emerge as highly qualified, and there is something to be said for the sustained habit of discipline in one direction for a long time. The other candidate is so new to all of this that he seemed caught in the failure of trying to do what worked for him in the past. 

I am working hard here to avoid giving an endorsement. I do think this first debate demonstrated who has the qualifications for the job. But there was no real argument about the issues we face. All of that was submerged behind two widely disliked people who have built large followings and have been given this time to appear. 

Beyond that, there were no arguments. We remain deeply divided and troubled over issues that we cannot seem to talk past. And this is a problem that is not resolved if we are simply trying to find who "looks best in the part." 

This was recognized, in part, in the late 5th century B.C.E. when Sophocles imagined Antigone coming forward before dawn to convince her sister to act, but failing even that bit of persuasion, and having to act alone.