“The people want it”
Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation
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 (argumentum ad populum) 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Studies of populist arguments
- 2.1The standard approach
- 2.2Walton’s ‘bolstered’ populist arguments
- 2.3Populist arguments in the context of political deliberation
- 2.4Johnson and Blair’s ambiguous position
- 3.The linking premise of a populist argument
- 3.1A criterial linking premise
- 3.2A procedural linking premise
- 4.Evaluating populist arguments in the context of deliberation
- Evaluation of the propositional content
- Evaluation of the justificatory power
- Evaluation in light of the institutional point
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References
Anderson, C.
1979 The place of principles in policy analysis.
The American Political Science Review, 73(3), 711–723.
Andone, C.
2015 Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques.
Argumentation et analyse du discours, 151, 13 pp. Retrieved from:
[URL]
Andone, C.
2016 Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry.
Argumentation, 301, 45–60.
Buruma, I.
4 September 2019 Britain’s enemy of the people? Project Syndicate. Retrieved from:
[URL]
Cook, F. Lomax, Barabas, J., and Page, B. I.
2002 Invoking public opinion. Policy elites and social security.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 661, 235–264.
Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C.
1990 Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. New York/London: Macmillan.
Dedrick, D.
2019 Is an appeal to popularity a fallacy of popularity? Informal Logic, 39(2), 147–167.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., and Meuffels, B.
2009 Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R.
1992 Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ etc.: Erlbaum Publishers.
van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R.
2004 A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
2016 Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation (2nd rev. ed.) New York/London: Routledge.
Ellwanger, A.
2017 Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(3), 181–198.
Fishkin, J. S.
2009 When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gallup, G. and Rae, S. F.
1968 The pulse of democracy.
The public-opinion poll and how it works. New York: Greenwood Press.
Godden, D.
2008 On common knowledge and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability.
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129.
Govier, T.
2010 A practical study of argument, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth). Retrieved from:
[URL]
de Gruyter, C.
31 August 2019 Democratische schade door referendum (Democratic damage through referendum).
NRC Handelsblad, p. 10. Retrieved from:
[URL]
Gutman, A. and Thompson, D.
2004 Why deliberative democracy? Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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
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, 411, 143–157.
Jansen, H. and van Leeuwen, M.
Johnson, R. H., and Blair, J. A.
2006 Logical Self-Defense. New York etc.: Idea Press.
Kahane, H.
1984,
Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the uses of logic in everyday life (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kienpointner
2003 Populistische Topik. Zu einigen rhetorischen Strategien Jörg Haiders.
Rhetorik, 21(1), 119–140.
Minot, W. S.
1981 A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum.
Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 111, 222–235.
Mudde, C., and Rovira Kaltwasser, C.
2017 Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller, J. W.
2016 What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nolt, J. E.
1984 Informal logic. Possible worlds and imagination. New York, etc.: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
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, 13 pp.
Rawls, J.
1999 A theory of justice (Revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Shapiro, R. Y.
2011 Public opinion and American democracy.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982–1017.
Skinner, G.
4 September 2019 An election is on the cards. So what do the polls tell us? The Guardian. Retrieved from:
[URL]
Taggart, P.
2000 Populism. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Tindale, C. W.
2007 Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. D., and Janik, A.
1984 An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan: University of California.
Walton, D. N.
1992 The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N.
1999 Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N.
2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., and Macagno, F.
2008 Argumentation schemes. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Weale, A.
2018 The will of the people. A modern myth. Cambridge/Madford: Polity Press.
Yankelovich, D.
1991 Coming to public judgment. Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Jansen, Henrike & Maarten van Leeuwen
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.