A Word on Compromise

According to a Gallup Poll, congress had an average approval rating of 14% last year (Newport). This indicates to me, as it should to anyone else reading this, that there might be a problem with the way congress is operating. According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the problem because they refuse to negotiate. Interestingly, the Republicans blame the Democrats for the exact same thing. Still, no progress is being made to pass bills for the greater good of the citizens of the United States, or to improve their dismal approval rating. The solution naturally would be to compromise on the issues set before them, but this has never been a talent of our nation's senate. Every decision made in this country is either black or white; there is no grey area, compromise, or acknowledgement of the other side of an argument. The reason for such bullheadedness just may be the method of our congress people's arguments.

A typical argument consists of a thesis, followed by evidence to support that thesis, a refutation of the opposing argument, and a conclusion (Kirszner). This general method has always been good at starting fights, but rarely addresses a serious problem in our society because at least one side is blind to the other's opinion. A pro gun advocate would completely ignore any argument for gun control simply because they feel their view is under attack. They don't see a universal problem or any way to compromise, because in their mind, they are the only person who can possibly be right. The problem with the traditional argument is that it fails to acknowledge the opposing view. Without respecting another's opinion, absolutely no compromise can be made.

Psychologist, Carl Rogers, developed the Rogerian Argument form to create an argument grounded in compromise and respect rather than frustration. It consists of the usual thesis, evidence, and refutation, but includes a more civilized manner by which to argue. The speaker addresses a universal problem and suggests solutions all while maintaining that the opposing argument does have some validity. It is less of an "attack" on an opposing view than a typical argument and generally has more success at reaching a verdict. A pro gun advocate may coynsider listening to another's argument if they can see a common problem and realize that the other person respects their opinion. 

If our political parties used Rogerian argument to address their concerns about the United States, we would be in much better shape than we currently are now. Every argument in the senate always seems to end up as a stalemate. Even problems with an almost obvious solution continue to see no progress being made whatsoever. The Rogerian Argument makes all the sense in the world to achieve a solution to an argument. One would think that congress would be the first to employ it's method. Considering that they don't, I really  question how fit our elected officials really are to run this country. 

Works Cited

Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell. "Understanding Argument." Practical Argument: A Text and

              Anthology. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Newport, Frank. "Congress Begins 2013 With 14% Approval." Congress Begins 2013 With 14%   

            Approval. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.