Campaign argument and the liberal public sphere: a case study of the process of developing messages in a congressional campaign.

• Author: Rowland, Robert C.
• Position: Case study

An enormous literature on the status of the public sphere exists. Often drawing on the work of Jurgen Habermas (Calhoun, 1992; Habermas, 1989), rhetorical and argumentation scholars have developed several theories of the public sphere and analyzed any number of campaigns or public controversies (Calhoun, 1993; Fabj & Sobnosky, 1995; Finnegan & Kang, 2004; Fraser, 1992; Goodnight, 1982, 1992; Griffin, 1996; Gring-Pemble, 1998; Klumpp, 1997; Phillips, 1996; Triadafilopoulos, 1999; Warner, 2002; Weal, 1985; Willard, 1989). (1) Almost without exception, these theoretical and descriptive analyses have been conducted from the perspective of the critic of argument looking at public controversy. The argumentation critic has played the role of expert peering into the public sphere in order to draw conclusions. An alternative approach is available, however, in which the argumentation critic uses his or her experience in an actual public controversy as an entry point for testing the public sphere. Rather than peer into the public sphere, the critic uses practical experience with a controversy to draw inferences about the public sphere. In this essay, I employ this alternative approach, as a participant-observer during the past eight years in the political campaigns of Congressman Dennis Moore of Kansas.

During these campaigns, I have played two contrasting roles. On one hand, I have been a practical rhetorician, helping the Moore campaign create messages that are both sensible in a policy sense and strategic in a persuasive sense. As a citizen-activist much like Andersen (1993) describes, I have relied on my training in argumentation, debate, and rhetorical theory. On the other hand, I have been a rhetorical critic, gathering messages, considering the rhetorical situation in which the messages were presented, drawing conclusions about which messages were effective and why, and assessing the degree to which campaign communications gave the public sensible reasons for voting. A dialectical dance between the roles of citizen activist and rhetorical critic should facilitate conclusions about the effectiveness of the public sphere in Dennis Moore's campaigns in Kansas' third congressional district.

LIBERAL PUBLIC SPHERE THEORY

My analysis is guided by liberal public sphere theory (Rowland, 2003, 2005). Drawing upon John Stuart Mill and especially James Madison, I have argued that an effectively functioning public sphere both provides the grounds for sensible decisions and legitimizes the choices made. An effective public sphere is essential for democracy; without it, the public has no means of making informed choices about issues or among candidates for public office.

Before explaining how liberal public sphere theory guided my analysis of the Moore campaign, it is appropriate to justify this theoretical perspective. Such justification is especially important given the enormous influence of Habermas and others, writing from a broadly critical perspective on public sphere theory within argumentation studies. There are two primary justifications for taking a liberal approach to the public sphere. First, while it is common to hear academics cite liberalism as a failed political theory, in the larger political world a broadly liberal perspective is dominant. (2) By liberal I do not mean the political perspective associated with the contemporary Democratic Party, but a broader perspective on democratic institutions in the context of limited government, in which separation of powers and other legal restrictions protect individual rights. This broadly liberal perspective has been dominant in American politics for more than 200 years and encompasses both the contemporary conservative and liberal movements. Moreover, with the end of the Soviet Union and the decline of authoritarian governments more generally, this broadly liberal perspective has been ascendant across the planet. As Orlando Patterson (1999) writes, "liberalism reigns supreme as the leading and, one might even say, overwhelming doctrine in the West.... Its central ideas seem to inform nearly all political and economic discourse" (p. 54).

The second justification for a liberal theory of the public sphere is that democratic decision making in the United States, especially as manifested in political campaigns, is built on liberal assumptions. Without the broadly liberal political theory that I have described, an effective public sphere could not exist. Public deliberation and decision making are not possible in nonliberal societies because those societies lack the superstructure that enables public debate and protects participants. The very critique of liberalism that is so common in academic discourse could not occur without the protections provided by democratic institutions tied to liberalism. Relatedly, concerns about expert domination of the public sphere (notably by Goodnight, 1982) assume that the ultimate basis of societal decision making should be the views of the public. This is an implicitly liberal assumption.

From the perspective of liberal theory, there are four primary actors in the public sphere: the public, representatives of the public (in this case, Dennis Moore and his campaign staff), the media, and relevant experts. While academics adhering to nonliberal precepts often adopt an atomistic perspective on the public sphere, breaking it up into smaller entities of publics and counterpublics (see Hauser, 1999; Negt & Kluge, 1993; Warner, 2002), liberal theorists have a different perspective. In their view, the public sphere is not merely a metaphor, but the real place where debate, deliberation, and decision making occur. This place encompasses the public square, the presentation of ideas in the press and electronic media, and all other contexts in which citizens talk to other citizens about issues of the day.

Each of these four actors must fulfill its responsibilities if the public sphere is to function effectively. Representatives must provide sufficient information to facilitate public deliberation and decision making. The public must pay adequate attention to the issues and take the time to sort through competing ideas. Of course, it is not reasonable to expect every citizen to search out material on all of the important issues of the day. In this context, the media play two crucial roles: providing information to the public and testing claims made by representatives of the public. Finally, where issues relate to specialized knowledge, relevant experts play a crucial role in informing both the media and representatives of the public. In a properly functioning public sphere, experts do not usurp the public's decisions but, rather, provide information and, often, competing viewpoints that the media and representatives convey to the public.

The liberal public sphere implicitly has two goals. These goals are obvious in the writings of James Madison, who, as the primary author of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is the most important American theorist of democracy. As Lance Banning (1995) has argued, "it is Madison on whom we unavoidably depend to comprehend [the Constitution's] intellectual foundations" (p. 2). At one level, the liberal public sphere was designed simply to facilitate public decision making. Political and other campaigns provided a vehicle for informing the public so that they could choose a policy or a candidate. At another level, Madison and other proponents of the liberal perspective, including Jefferson, Lincoln, and John Stuart Mill, also believed that the give-and-take of debate in the public sphere offered the best hope of choosing policies that were not simply popular, but likely to be effective. In The Federalist Number 41, Madison (1788/1999) argued: "A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself' (p. 231). Similarly, Mill's (1859/1963) formative analysis of the power of public...