Location, Location, Location

Where an argument takes place can have an important impact on the outcome of the argument. Attorneys “venue shop” hoping to try cases in front of favorable judges, kids quickly learn which parent is the soft touch and smart advocates strategically select legislative committees for their bills.

This morning’s Washington Post Wonkbook points to the most recent example of advocates using jurisdictions as a tool. They point to a Wall Street Journal piece on advocates encouraging the Senate to debate extension of the Bush tax cuts through the Finance Committee rather than bringing the debate straight to the floor.

Advocates will no doubt make arguments about the regular order of the Senate and the importance of following the rules, especially when public cynicism with Congress is running so high. Good reasons to be sure – but as the Journal notes, a more likely reason is that the Senate Finance Committee is more amendable to the tax cut extension than the full Senate is.

(As a side note – if you don’t read Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook you really ought to – smart, well written, fun asides, no DC gossip.)

In this case the venue can help determine the outcome without having any persuasive effect; that the debate happens in Committee doesn’t make it more or less persuasive, it simply changes those in charge of the outcome (another critical point about power, which is another discussion for another time).

There are cases in which the location helps define the issue and thus is itself part of the persuasion. For example, if network neutrality is debated in the Judiciary Committee it is “about” fairness for consumers but if it’s debated in the Commerce Committee it’s about economics. Similarly, if vertical consolidation of media is debated in Judiciary it’s about anti-trust, if it’s debated in Commerce it’s about the market and if it’s debated in the Small Business Committee it’s about entrepreneurs and job creation. Each location highlights a different dimension of the debate, privileges different arguments, gives different witnesses and advocates credibility, and has different standards for what makes a good argument. The location is itself persuasive and helps determine the persuasive aspects of the rest of the debate.

Smart advocates consider the where of an argument when they construct their strategies, factoring in the specific decision makers in a specific location as well as the broader rhetorical effects of their chosen venue.