Alan Dershowitz, famed defense attorney, has a great quote
about the practice of defending clients.
“When the law is on
your side pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When
neither is on your side, pound the table! (paraphrase)” it is a brilliant
line because it sums up most of our adult arguments in a classic ‘rule of 3’
joke line. From the time we are kids we argue based on one of those three conditions.
Most adult arguments can be boiled down to those three elements. Our debates
fit neatly into one of the camps but rarely is our opinion solidly so.
As kids we took turns washing the dishes every night
fighting about whose turn it was. From the lazy “It was my turn last night I
ain’t doing ‘em again!” to the exaggerated “I wash all the time!”
The ‘law’
part works like this. The dishes need to be done; it is the law of the house
and someone must do them. The ‘fact’ part of the argumentation goes like this,
some wash dishes more than others so they shouldn’t be assigned the dishes yet
again. It doesn’t matter if the person shouting about doing the chore more
frequently is telling the truth. We never had a system for determining who ACTUALLY
washed the previous night—memories being short.
Imagine a third family member (cousin) who never did dishes
because they didn’t live there getting dragged into the conversation. The task
was given to the visitor, it’s the least they could do getting a free meal and
such. The cousin is neither required to do the dishes on a regular basis, no
law, neither have they cleaned up at any point in the past, no facts. Their
only recourse is to shout, threaten or beg mercy and hope the other family
members are scared enough or compassionate enough to recant on the chore.
By appealing to a sense of sentiment “I am a guest here!…how
many times do I come over and I have to clean up?” Or violence “I am going back
up real slow…when I turn around I better see those dishes getting scrubbed.”
This is said while holding a steak knife and doing mock jabs into the air. The
ungrateful visitor is ‘pounding the table’ since they lack other options.
It goes further toward explaining most issues of the day
whether political or cultural. These days the two collide like heated atoms.
Take any issue and apply the formula. Donald Trump has rocketed to fame this
year, primarily because of his strong stance against illegal immigration. He
pounds the law by emphasizing the illegality of being in the country and his
recommendations are born of law enforcement—a big southern fence. Hilary
Clinton, when she does debate, pounds the facts of illegal immigration and the
businesses that depend on migrant workers and low skilled employees. Groups
that support amnesty for illegals and congressman like Luis Gutierez of
Illinois pound the table by criticizing the law and name calling their
opponents.
Immigration is a far more intricate spectacle than the
simplified version I laid out. I gave Clinton too much credit; mostly she
prefers table pounding and name calling. She has been on both sides of the
issue surely. Trump has been nasty as well but has recently softened his
position on making Mexico pay for the wall. The tactics politicians use are a
mixed bag and almost no one takes a purely rational line on anything. The
framework Dershowitz laid out for the courtroom holds true for issues of the
day. If nothing else, it should help a person recognize what the opposing view
might look like and where it will come from.
Oh and our dish problem was solved by the revolutionary idea
of assigning a day to a kid, 6 kids 6 days. Mom took day 7.
Legal brilliance tied
law and fact together and no one was hurt—despite the table pounding.
No comments:
Post a Comment