David Balluff on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:34:37 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> my humble analysis of rhetoric in the elections |
any feedback is appreciated (ballud AT rpi.edu) War of the Words David Balluff The 2004 Presidential election, full of spectacle and sensationalism, reveals much about contemporary media, politics and rhetorical speech in the United States. The paucity of substantive debate during this election cycle is in itself illuminating - both candidates were handled more as brand names rather than political candidates vying for the Presidency. In this paper, I will take a look at some of the narrative themes running through the election cycle, and provide a historical context for the ways in which rhetoric was used by both the candidates and others. In American politics, John F. Kennedy is widely credited with being our first media savvy President. His ability to use television successfully in the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates contrasts dramatically with Richard Nixon, who many viewed as sickly and uncomfortable in front of the cameras. Reagan too had a telegenic quality that served him well as both an actor and statesman. However, political campaigns in recent years have become hyper-mediated events, ever-present on TV, radio, print and the web. Although the internet as a medium has only factored significantly in the last political campaign (Howard Dean's ability to raise money online nearly gave him the Democratic nomination, and John Kerry's citing of his web address during the debates was also a first), the impact of the internet and information technologies in the American cultural sphere has been felt for over a decade. Modern campaign managers now find themselves having to adapt not only to the internet as a new advertising medium, but also as a forum for public discussion and a vehicle for fundraising. As a consequence, the primary emphasis in modern political campaigns has been on controlling the message by a mixture of tight message coordination between local, state and national groups and by customizing the candidate's message based on regional or demographic data -- very similar to how a multi-national corporation might handle a product's marketing campaign. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 "Republican Revolution", states in a 1996 GOPAC memo1, "Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning." He provides two lists of words as an aid for politicians and activists, one labeled "Optimistic Positive Governing Words" - used to define a campaign and vision of public service, and "Contrasting Words" - used to define their opponents. In the 1980's and 1990s, Karl Rove, who has a background in direct marketing, "would typically begin a race by constructing seven-layer spreadsheets of the electoral history of a particular office, charting where the votes for each candidate had originated, and which groups had supplied them."2 Political campaigns are now adapting persuasive techniques typically used in advertising. Campaign managers are adept at framing their candidate's actions in the best possible light in much the same way that advertising executives strategize about commercial products. Marketing has become so intertwined with contemporary politics that we barely notice anymore. With this in mind, I'd like to begin my analysis of the Presidential debates by looking at the historical foundations of persuasion, beginning with Aristotle's treatise, On Rhetoric. The book is divided up into three sections; Books I & II are devoted to an analysis of rhetoric, while the third section is more of an examination of rhetorical techniques. Aristotle considers rhetoric to be a close counterpart to dialectic, and situates rhetoric as a public form of dialectical affirmation or refutation in this last section. Although Aristotle considered dialectic and rhetoric to be closely related, dialectic argumentation, he states, "proceeds by question and answer, not, as rhetoric does, by continuous exposition."3 Therefore, rhetoric is concerned with the logic of an argument itself only insofar as it is persuasive. Dialectic is concerned with the facts themselves, with less emphasis on their delivery. In the first two Books of his treatise, Aristotle identifies three main types of rhetorical persuasion; those derived either from the character of the speaker (ethos), the emotions awakened by the speaker (pathos), or by the logical argument (logos) itself. For the purposes of this paper, I consider these three categories to be most concerned with message presentation and delivery. The modern ethos is concerned with the speaker as a brand, and what that brand represents. Emotional manipulation, or pathos, is ever-present in modern culture - the filmic "tear-jerker" is but one example. And since these three categories are primarily concerned with the speaker as a rhetorical agent, logos is concerned more with the methods of argumentation rather than the logic of the argument. In terms of public speech, Aristotle divides rhetoric into three categories (species): deliberative, judicial and epideictic. These relate to the audience primarily, not the speaker, and have a temporal quality. One is either exhorted or dissuaded, according to Aristotle: asked to deliberate about future actions. If one is asked to adjudicate by a speaker, the argument is either an accusation or a defense of past actions. However, the epideictic category is more concerned with the qualities of the speaker or an action -- the assignation of praise and blame. These six categories (the three "types" and three "species") of rhetoric serve as an analytical foundation for this paper, but before I delve into the election itself, I would like to update these categories by bringing in ideas from contemporary scholarship, aided by a hypothetical presidential candidate, Mr. Haden White. Let us assume that Mr. White is a veteran, and worked as a lawyer at a reputable law firm for twenty years before being elected to a number of state offices. He's currently married with two sons, a U.S. Senator, and is seen as being a populist by residents in his state. His campaign manager in past campaigns has emphasized his military service and his role as a political reformer with a good deal of success. Now we know a little about his character, or ethos, and how he's been positioned as a candidate. Since this paper is concerned with the influence of marketing in politics, the thoughts of David Ogilvy, one of the more influential figures in American advertising, are germane. In his 1983 book Ogilvy On Advertising, he emphasizes the importance of brand image and brand positioning. He defines positioning as "what a product does, and who it is for,"4 while brand image is equivalent to a product's personality. In Mr. White's case, he is portrayed as a strong military man, a father and a populist, and this sets the stage for an emotional response, or pathos. Ogilvy also stresses the importance of using images with "story appeal," as they attract far more attention than average.5 He cites a successful campaign for Hathaway shirts in which he placed an eye-patch on a dapper model, lending an air of mystery and intrigue to the brand. Our hypothetical candidate can thus be photographed with his sons and be seen as authoritative or nurturing. Historical shots of Mr. White in uniform evoke bravery, pride and patriotism. And when our candidate gives a speech, he is able to call upon his image as a father and soldier to evoke these emotional responses from the audience. This brand positioning serves to insert an actor into a pre-existing narrative framework, according to George Lakoff, a Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and author of the groundbreaking Metaphors We Live By. More importantly, one effect of this positioning is that we tend to subconsciously associate other characteristics from the same metaphor with our hypothetical candidate, even if these characteristics have never been explicitly addressed by the campaign. Since fathers in popular culture are commonly portrayed as protectors, bread-winners and authority figures, by placing White within this framework, his campaign manager now has far less work to do in convincing voters. He can focus on presenting Mr. White as a father, and the metaphor takes care of the rest. In 2004, Lakoff published Don't Think of an Elephant, a small tome that expands on ideas in Metaphors We Live By, but geared specifically towards countering conservative arguments. Lakoff argues conservatives have an advantage in terms of their use of metaphor and framing, and that to be competitive, progressives must learn how to re-frame issues to their advantage. He introduces framing as "mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions. In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies."6 As an example, Lakoff points to overarching metaphors within the 2004 Presidential elections, focusing specifically on the "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" frames that inform the Republican and Democratic candidacies respectively. His assertions about framing echo Aristotle's logos: the way in which an argument is made is as important as the words themselves. The "strict father" frame is not exclusively the domain of Republicans, nor is the "nurturant parent" model specifically Democratic or progressive. If it were, we would be discussing caricature, and not metaphor. Lakoff contends that "just about everybody in American culture has both models, either actively or passively,"7 and that people may use both models, but in different parts of their lives. As a consequence, both candidates use or activate these frames in speeches with the intent of persuading voters on the opposite side, as well as shoring up support amongst their base. However, as a frame, Republicans find the "strict father" model particularly useful since it reinforces and justifies conservative policies. Lakoff asserts that this model begins with a set of assumptions; that "the world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winner and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good."8 The "nurturant parent" model, in contrast, is gender neutral, for "both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that."9 To Lakoff, nurturing means empathy and responsibility, with progressive values like transparency, community-building and fairness stemming from this model. In terms of our Mr. White, he falls more into the "strict father" model by virtue of his emphasis in previous campaigns on military service, but he can also activate the "nurturant parent" model by talking about his children or about political reforms that he has undertaken. He may even activate both models within the same speech, and since these metaphorical frames are largely subconscious, they don't seem contradictory. So far, I have focused on how Lakoff's frames can be used to reflect certain values back onto a candidate, but it is a much more powerful (and Orwellian) tool when used to promote issues. One only needs to look at recent Republican legislative initiatives (Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind) to see that the GOP has achieved a level of mastery of this technique. If our hypothetical candidate has voted as a Senator in favor of the Healthy Forests Initiative, or the Clear Skies Act, his opponent will have to spend extra time convincing voters why the Clean Air Act is, in fact, bad for the environment, whereas Mr. White's campaign can hang their hat on a feel-good symbol that needs no further explanation. According to Lakoff, "in cognitive science there is a name for this phenomenon. It's called hypocognition -- the lack of the ideas you need, the lack of a relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked by a word or two."10 These techniques have been around for a while, though no one has used them with more success than Karl Rove, Bush's chief campaign strategist. The term "liberal activist judges" is a Rovian frame dating back to his work on judicial campaigns in Alabama in 1994. In his article on Rove for the November 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green quotes a former Rove staffer who explains that "the term "activist judges" motivates all sorts of people for very different reasons. If you're a religious conservative, he said, it means judges who established abortion rights or who interpret Massachusetts's equal-protection clause as applying to gays. If you're a business conservative, it means those who allow exorbitant jury awards. And in Alabama especially, the term conjures up those who forced integration."11 It is important to note that regardless of the interpretation, this frame intentionally elicits emotions of fear and anger from conservative voters. Consider the Republican use of the term "tax relief" instead of the more commonly used "tax reform." By reframing the debate on taxes as one that calls for relief instead of reform, Republicans can conjure up assumptions that taxes are a burden, and that anyone who is against reforming the system is somehow contributing to additional taxpayer misery. Of course, this belies the point that taxes do pay for necessary infrastructural costs, defense and education, among other things, but as a way to manipulate public opinion, it is a highly potent re-framing of the issue. Superficially, no one is going to vote against "relief", and every time the phrase is used by politicians or reporters, it reinforces an ideological point of view that favors conservatives. According to Lakoff, Republican efforts to reduce taxes are an example of a "strategic initiative," or "a plan in which a change in one carefully chosen issue area has automatic effects over many, many other issues."12 Since reducing the amount of income from taxpayers places financial burdens on future government budgets, "tax relief" paves the way for the "privatization of Social Security" (one of the few liberal frames), and necessitates drastic cuts to Medicare, education and social services. Another contemporary example of framing used by Republicans is tort reform. Again, Rove's past actions are instructive: while working in Alabama, Rove demonized Democrats as lawyers' lap dogs by publicizing outrageous verdicts. He focused on a case where a doctor from the wealthiest part of the state was awarded $4 million when his BMW was repainted due to acid rain damage prior to delivery. He had his candidates use terms like "jackpot justice" and "wealthy personal-injury trial lawyers" to enflame public opinion against lawyers and Democrats alike.13 Lakoff also points to tort reform as a strategic initiative, since Democrats historically tend to get more campaign contributions from tort lawyers than Republicans do, and in one stroke of the pen, "reformers" can get rid of all kinds of onerous regulations for the chemical industry, coal companies and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, he suggests, tort reform for conservatives means getting rid of an individual's right to sue corporations, or at the least, capping damages in judgments. "What the conservatives are really trying to achieve follows from enacting the proposal. They don't care primarily about the lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and workplace protections in general. And they care about de-funding the Democratic Party."14 As I mentioned earlier, Aristotle noted that public speeches about past, present and future events utilize different categories (or species) of rhetoric. As an organizing principle, I have structured my analysis of the 2004 elections in this section accordingly. Rhetorical speeches about past actions either accuse or defend, and focus on whether an action is just or honorable, according to Aristotle. However, Ogilvy makes a salient point in regards to marketing, which is that it is often better to appear "positively good" rather than asserting one's superiority over a competitor.15 Many pundits remarked during this election cycle that it seemed as if Americans were once again debating Vietnam, both because of the parallels to the war in Iraq and also due to the candidates' past. The issue of whether or not George W. Bush received special treatment in the National Guard has dogged the President since his days as Governor of Texas. John Kerry, on the other hand, served honorably in Vietnam, but later became a very public and outspoken opponent of the war. Attacks on Kerry over the summer of 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were extremely effective, and all but neutralized Kerry's lead in the polls going into the Republican National Convention. The tactical differences between the two campaigns are significant. Bush was able to run a fairly positive campaign while dismissing accusations of nepotism as "old news", whereas Kerry had to attack Bush directly while simultaneously fending off unsubstantiated charges from an "independent" group. While Bush had a ready frame (old news) to use against attackers, Kerry had a problem with hypocognition, and had to resort to long answers to defend himself and his past actions. If one looks at Cameron Marlow's linguistic analysis of the first debate, which focused on foreign affairs and Iraq, Bush used the phrase "free Iraq" fourteen times and "hard work" thirteen. In contrast, Kerry mentioned Saddam Hussein and North Korea fourteen times each, and mentioned his frame, "War as a last resort" only nine times.16 The phrase itself is ill-fitting as a metaphorical frame, since Kerry voted for the use of force in Iraq, and he never adequately explained how America's war in Iraq was not a "last resort" scenario. Although many consider Bush's campaign to be more negative, Bush the candidate was much more optimistic in his defense, and Kerry more pessimistic in his accusations. Bush was also more successful at using terms which either activated metaphorical frames or reinforced a positive image of himself. Bush's repeated use of the phrase "hard work" in the debates, while awkward, reinforced the assertion that Bush, no matter how unpolished, was doing a difficult job. Kerry's phrase "a different set of convictions" only works in contrast with Bush. He failed to define himself as anything but in opposition to the President. In looking at future events, a speaker either exhorts his audience to adopt his or her viewpoint, or dissuades against a competing point of view. Ultimately, the audience is asked to deliberate on whether a particular action will increase or decrease their happiness. In looking at the presidential debates, it is noteworthy that Bush used the word terror far more than Kerry.17 Since terror and terrorism are such emotionally evocative words post 9/11, fear of possible future attacks in the voters' minds only serves to benefit Bush, since the President seemed more confident about preventing future attacks. Kerry was unable to make a strong case that voters should fear the President and his policies more than an attack. Furthermore, Kerry's assertion that Bush's foreign policy has made the U.S. less safe is problematic. Aristotle states that "the defendant always has an advantage over the prosecutor when refuting probability, since the prosecutor demonstrates by probabilities and since it is not the same thing to show in refutation that an argument is not probable as to show it is not necessary, what is for the most part true is always open to objection; for otherwise it would not be for the most part and probable, but always and necessary."18 Without any significant terrorist attacks post 9/11, it is difficult at best for Kerry to prove his assertion, whereas Bush's defense hinges on the absence of renewed attacks. Epideictic rhetoric is related to the present, and the assessment of praise and blame. Much of this is related to the perception of the character of the speaker, for, as Aristotle notes, "fair-mindedness on the part of the speaker makes no contribution to persuasiveness, character is the controlling factor in persuasion."19 And epideictic rhetoric is less concerned with specifics than either deliberative or judicial rhetoric, relying on the exposition of general traits and behaviors. In contemporary politics, politicians are primarily defined (praised) by legions of spin doctors and image consultants who manage photo opportunities, write speeches and release upbeat talking points to members of the press corps. In the case of George W. Bush, his campaign situated him as a war president, flying onto aircraft carriers and delivering (albeit fake) turkey to the troops in Iraq. He was alternatively presented as both stern and nurturing - activating both metaphorical frames and thus, appealing to a wider segment of the population. Though widely ridiculed as a "fortunate son" and a "moron," these attacks didn't seem to have much of an effect on his image with core Republican voters. John Kerry, too, was presented as a military man. Much was made of his medals for bravery and his duty to his country. At the Democratic National Convention, he took the stage and said that he was "reporting for duty," though the frame evoked by that phrase suggested a loyal subordinate rather than a commander-in-chief. Hampering his campaign's efforts to portray him as a strong military figure were ads placed by the Swift Boat Veterans as well as his own activities as an anti-war activist upon his return from Vietnam. Together, they sowed doubt and confusion about Kerry's character. Was he a loyal military man or a disloyal hippie? Swing voters and moderate Republicans were more likely to believe the SBVFT than Kerry, since the attack was coming from other, presumably loyal veterans. Of course, this analysis of the 2004 electoral cycle is based in part on the generous assumption that votes accurately reflected the will of the people -- exit polls and statistical probability be dammed. The Republicans do have an edge in terms of their use of framing and metaphor, and the Democrats have a lot of catching up to do, both in terms of re-framing key issues and in terms of lost time. Conservatives started putting together think tanks and institutions in the early 1970's, and they are much better funded than their liberal counterparts. "In 2002 four times as much money was spent on research by the right as by the left, and they got four times as much media time,"20 Lakoff reminds us. George W. Bush is perhaps the first American President with his own corporate logo - the "W," and in this respect, the difference between politics and brand-name advertising has all but disappeared. No wonder so many people find politics distasteful and uninspiring. Notes: 1) Newt Gingrich, 1996 GOPAC Memo, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm 2) Joshua Green, "Karl Rove In A Corner" Atlantic Monthly, November 2004, p 100 3) Aristotle, On Rhetoric, translated by George A. Kennedy, 1991, Oxford University Press, London. p.26 4) David Ogilvy, Ogilvy on Advertising, 1983, Crown Publishers, Inc. New York. p. 12 5) ibid, p. 22 6) George Lakoff, Don't Think Of An Elephant, 2004, Chelsea Green Publishing, VT. p. xv 7) ibid, p. 21 8) ibid, p. 7 9) ibid, p. 11-12 10) ibid, p. 24 11) Joshua Green, "Karl Rove In A Corner" Atlantic Monthly, November 2004, p 100 12) Elephant, p. 31 13) Joshua Green, p. 92 14) Elephant, p. 30 15) Ogilvy, p. 19 16) Cameron Marlowe, http://overstated.net/04/10/01-presidential-debate-analysis, 2004 17) Marlowe. In the first debate, Bush mentioned terror or terrorism 22 times to Kerry's 19, in the second debate, Bush: 16 times to Kerry's 8. In the final debate, Bush: 7, Kerry: 5. 18) Aristotle, p. 212 19) ibid, p. 26 20) Elephant, p. 16 The end product of democracy is freedom, of oligarchy wealth, of aristocracy things related to education and the traditions of law, and of tyranny self-preservation. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net