Woellert vs. Magnusson: National ID Card Debate Analysis

Introduction: The National ID Card Debate

The debate over whether the United States should institute National ID cards in the wake of 9/11 has raised many questions among citizens concerned with both safety and government intrusion. Lorraine Woellert and Paul Magnusson debate the issue in BusinessWeek Online. Woellert cites the failure of such cards to ensure safety and highlights the tighter control government will have with their implementation. Magnusson, on the other hand, defends the affordable technological advances that the National ID card would employ. However, Magnusson's style, logic, and supporting evidence give him a weaker argument than Woellert, who spends more time considering her audience, acknowledging opposing views, and delivering an organized, balanced, and well-reasoned report. This paper examines why Woellert's argument is more persuasive than Magnusson's.

Magnusson's Tone and Opening Weaknesses

Paul Magnusson begins his case with a condescending and presumptuous air. First, he addresses his opponent not as Ms. Woellert but as "Lorraine" — as if she were too simplistic to deserve a formalized reference — and apologizes not for his tone but for her being wrong. He then proceeds to suggest that his point is so obvious it does not even require argumentation, as though the case has already been stated and won: "The great debate over the national ID card has already been decided." Has it? When and by whom? Magnusson displays the kind of inflated rhetoric of a sports analyst whose job is merely to fill a two-minute gap between commercials.

Unfortunately, his rhetoric is not backed by much substance. He provides only two references to Woellert's five. Authority rests firmly with Woellert, who draws on analyses from a technology expert at a major university, the associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, the former director of the National Security Agency and head of Cylink Corp., and Professor Jonathan S. Shapiro of Johns Hopkins University. Magnusson, by contrast, cites only the technology-company CEOs who stand to profit from a National ID card program.

Magnusson's Use of Language and Evidence

Magnusson's use of style and language is equally problematic. He loosely refers to "our system" as makeshift — without specifying what system he means or explaining in what sense it is makeshift. He labels current IDs as "dumb" because they lack the latest technology, and suggests that smart computer chips are the solution to our "haphazard" ways. In doing so, Magnusson immediately signals that he is on the fire-and-brimstone path of preaching against the supposed ignorance of people like Woellert, whose disinterest in computer chips, he implies, marks her as one of the incompetent bystanders propping up a failing system. Magnusson uses a great deal of charged language in his opening, but none of it is sound or supported by evidence — nor does it give him a firm footing for making an intelligible point. For background on the broader policy debate surrounding national identification cards, the issue encompasses civil liberties, security, and technological feasibility in equal measure.

Woellert's Credibility and Rhetorical Approach

Woellert, by contrast, quickly establishes her credentials as an objective observer by recounting the state of the nation and acknowledging a genuine climate of fear and anxiety. She does not immediately disparage the opposing point of view she intends to challenge. Instead, she states the case for National ID cards and then poses the central question: Will they work? No, she answers — calmly and clearly. The principles of classical rhetoric hold that a speaker who respects an audience and presents a balanced view earns greater persuasive authority, and Woellert exemplifies this approach from the outset.

Conclusion: Comparing the Two Arguments

Woellert and Magnusson both take on the issue of National ID cards in a post-9/11 United States, but with very different results. Woellert effectively argues against their adoption by constructing a reasonable thesis, providing supporting evidence from credible experts, engaging her audience respectfully, and acknowledging the counterpoints of the opposing argument. Magnusson, by contrast, takes the inefficient stance of someone who claims to have no argument to make, admits it implicitly, and then belittles those who prefer to think the issue has not already been resolved by technology alone. On every measure of rhetorical effectiveness — tone, evidence, logic, and audience awareness — Woellert's argument is the stronger of the two.