THE STOCK ISSUES MODEL
The Stock Issues Model is a tool used to organize one’s analysis of a controversy and, ultimately, to identify “clash” in a controversy. The list of potential issues that can be brought forward in a speech is limitless. You must limit yourself to a few issues. The really critical issues, where the proponents of change, and their opponents, clash.
There is a clear logic to the Stock Issues. That logic is based on a common sense approach to the manner in which change is managed in a democratic society. Think about the policy controversy you’ve been researching, or any with which you’re familiar, for that matter. In order to change the status quo (present system) the advocate of change must persuade members of the assembly that there is a problem, and that it is a significant problem (significant enough to warrant changing the status quo). He or she must also present plausible analysis regarding causes of the problem, then suggest a solution, or cure, for the problem (that addresses the causes.) Finally, the advocate of change must argue that the benefits of adopting the policy change outweigh the costs of implementation (the cost issue).
Disagreements usually arise along these commonly occurring, standard issues–(hence the name, “stock” issues):
Problem–Is there a problem in the status quo?
- How signinficant is it? (Significance is a sub topic of the problem issue. Why? Because, if the problem isn’t significant enough, there is no need for change, and change for its own sake is chaotic.)
Cause–Is the present system to blame for the problem?
- What is/are the obstacle/s preventing change? (IF THERE IS NOTHING STANDING IN THE WAY OF CHANGE, WHY IS THERE STILL A PROBLEM?)
Cure— Is it workable? Does the proposed solution actually address the root cause of the problem?
Cost–Is the cure feasible? Is the plan cost effective? Is it enforceable? In other words, “Will the benefits outweigh the costs of implementing the cure?”
A pure clash between the advocates of change and their opponents would be where the proponent says “yes” to each stock issue and the opponent says, “no.” But how often does that happen?
- Normally, the one side agrees with the other that there is a problem, but they may disagree on the solution to the problem, or may think the proponents’ cure is too costly. There are “admitted issues.” We need an example.
War in Iraq
The problem, according to the Obama administration (proponents) is that America was bogged down in an unnecessary war for oil and that Iraqis wanted us out of their country. Obama promised to get America out, so he did, and we shifted our focus to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. The cause is, George W. Bush wanted to go after Saddam Hussein to finish what his father started, and wanted to secure a steady flow of oil from the Mideast. But Osama bin Laden was the most significant threat to our security and he was hidden in the mountain caves of Afghanistan. In addition, bin Laden was known to support terrorism with significant amounts of money and other technology. The cure (proposed policy) is to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. The cost is estimated at $2 billion and several hundred American casualties. There could also be a backlash from Islamic fundamentalists around the globe.
Now, go post to the discussion forum entitled “War in Iraq” so I can be sure you understand how to apply the stock issues model.
Finally, consider that real analysis takes place below the surface. Why? Because that’s where the heart of the controversy is generally found. Any bozo can talk about the obvious, “they say this and they say that. . ..” blah, blah, blah. But the real clash of issues oftentimes takes place “below the surface,” at the level of assumption. That is so because people always hold their most basic values and perspectives as assumptions, and sometimes those assumptions need to be brought to the surface and questioned. For example, in the controversy over capital punishment, the fundamental (underlying) issues have to do with questions like:
- Is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” (a constitutional question)
- Does a just society kill it’s citizens in the name of justice? (a question of definition)
- Does capital punishment deter crime (a question of cause and effect)
These “questions at stake” rest at the center of the controversy, and, many times, advocates on either side of the debate don’t argue about these questions, they argue from them. In other words, answers to those questions are held as assumptions, and if one aims to analyze the controversy, attempting to go deeper than surface arguments, one has to “ferret out” those assumptions. Click on the “Stock Issues Worksheet” link below for help ferreting out the assumptions in your particular policy controversy. (You will hand in this completed worksheet as part of the A of C assignment.)
So, your most important task in this speech is to bring each side’s assumptions to the surface and place them on the examining table for your audience to see.
Go to the the Basic Logic Tutorial when you’re ready to learn how to identify assumptions. WARNING: This is an intensive tutorial. Don’t tackle it until you’re ready to devote a couple hours to homework.