by Richard L. Weaver IIOne question I am constantly asked is, “Because you are in the speech-communication discipline, don’t you just love all the political rhetoric in the presidential campaigns?” To phrase it a bit differently, “Because you majored in speech, don’t you just love speeches?” The answer is “No,” no matter how the question is phrased, and I’ll tell you why. The main reason is that most speeches are boring. And, with respect to political rhetoric more specifically, so much of it cannot be believed or trusted. The real question is, “How do you make sense of all the political rhetoric?”
There is no way I can adequately do justice to that question in a short essay (although I’m going to try), let me recommend an excellent book that handles the question in less than 200 pages. Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have written a book, unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation (Random House, 2007) that helps tell fact from fiction. In reviewing the book, Mara Liasson, NPR national political correspondent, wrote that these authors “have written a citizen’s guide to avoiding the malarkey of partisan politics.” “With this book,” it states on the back, “and a healthy dose of skepticism, anyone can cut through the haze of biased media reportage to be a savvier consumer and a better- informed citizen.”
As an important point of credibility, it must be noted that Jackson and Jamieson are the founders of the acclaimed website FactCheck.org, which is one of Time magazine’s “25 websites you can’t live without.”
The key to understanding political rhetoric is to understand that we live in a world of “spin,” which is a polite word for deception. “Spinners mislead by means that range from subtle omissions to outright lies,” write Jackson and Jamieson, “Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts, mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying critical evidence, or just ‘spinning a yarn’—by making things up” (p. ix).
It is not news that politicians purposely fill voters’ heads with disinformation about both their opponents and about their own policies. There are a number of techniques they use to deceive, and applying any of these techniques to the rhetoric you hear will serve as an introduction—a beginning place—for your analysis and evaluation.
The first technique is to recognize claims that are too dramatic. This often occurs when you hear statistics used. To believe statistics, you must know who generated the numbers and how, the credibility of the source from which they were drawn, how current they are, and whether or not they are designed to tell what is happening right now or reveal information that shows a trend. Since it is seldom you get enough information to make even a cursory analysis and evaluation of the statistics politicians bandy about, it is better to remain skeptical. The problem, of course, is that you want to believe the statistics of the politicians you support.
The second technique Jackson and Jamieson label “the dangling comparative.” As an example, they cite George W. Bush’s 2004 TV campaign ads which used the line, “[John] Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.” The obvious conclusion would be that Kerry had voted to raise taxes an alarming number of times, but that is not the case. Bush counted every vote Kerry had cast against a proposed tax cut—which meant voting to leave taxes unchanged. Also, to get the figure 350 he padded the count by including the procedural votes on the same bills. In Bush’s mind, a vote for cutting taxes became a vote for “higher taxes,” but as an example of “the dangling comparative,” he left unanswered the question, “Higher than what?”
The words “larger,” “better,” “faster,” “higher,” and “more” when used to compare two things—left dangling without a statement of what’s being compared—is called a dangling comparative.
The third technique is “the superlative swindle,” or the use of adjectives or adverbs that elevate a situation or circumstance to its highest or extreme degree—superior to all others. The point is to be on the lookout for claims such as “biggest in history” or “smallest ever.” Just as succumbing to the other techniques, being convinced by superlatives can lead you to make shallow political decisions.
The “Pay You Tuesday” con is the fourth technique. Politicians will promise you anything today—especially something you desire a great deal—if you will just vote for him or her. The con is that you won’t have to pay for whatever it is until Tuesday—if ever. You can’t promise new social programs without mentioning the future costs to taxpayers. You can’t promise reduced taxes without mentioning future deficits or program cuts. Pay on Tuesday means your kids will pay.
The fifth technique is the blame game. People who find their own position weak or indefensible often attack. Casting blame is always a clue that the attacker may need a closer look than the person being blamed. Bush blamed greedy lawyers as a major factor in the rising cost of health care—a claim that was disputed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Liberals blame “big oil companies” when gasoline prices shoot up; conservatives blame liberals for being “soft on crime.” The incumbent president is always blamed when the economy goes soft or the stock market tanks. When you hear people casting blame, take a close look at their facts.
“Glittering Generalities” is the sixth technique. These are attractive sounding, but vague terms. The words “middle class” are just such words, and you are unlikely to find a candidate who isn’t for the middle class. Why? Because, in America, so few people think of themselves as lower-class or upper-class. One candidate will proclaim that he or she will “fight for America’s middle class,” while another will promise to “target tax cuts to the middle class.” Think about it: how does a candidate define “middle class”? Other glittering generalities—and there are many—include “affordable housing,” a “right to privacy,” “family values,” or “dignity,” “honor,” “freedom,” “integrity,” and “justice.” When you hear them, ask what is meant.
The list of deceptive techniques, of course, could go on and on, but these are some common ones. Rather than just finding examples of the techniques in use, which shouldn’t take long, it is more important to listen closely to what is being said, be skeptical of what you hear, and be critical and evaluative whether the candidate is your own or an opponent. Spin or no spin, this is politics!
______________________________________________________________________________
See “The Politics of Rhetoric v. Reality” by eriposte at the website “the left coaster” at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011878.php The essay there is dated Sunday, February 3, 2008, and details the experience when the reality of politics overwhelms the promise of rhetoric.
Check out the website “Rhetorica” at http://www.rhetorica.net/ The essay there is entitled “Rhetoric: Press-Politics Journal.”
For a highly academic (but wonderful) article entitled “On Objectivity and Politics in Rhetoric,” see Michael Calvin McGee’s essay in the American Communication Journal (Volume 4, Issue 3, Spring 2001), to be found at http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss3/special/mcgee.htm
______________________________________________________________________________
There is no way I can adequately do justice to that question in a short essay (although I’m going to try), let me recommend an excellent book that handles the question in less than 200 pages. Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have written a book, unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation (Random House, 2007) that helps tell fact from fiction. In reviewing the book, Mara Liasson, NPR national political correspondent, wrote that these authors “have written a citizen’s guide to avoiding the malarkey of partisan politics.” “With this book,” it states on the back, “and a healthy dose of skepticism, anyone can cut through the haze of biased media reportage to be a savvier consumer and a better- informed citizen.”
As an important point of credibility, it must be noted that Jackson and Jamieson are the founders of the acclaimed website FactCheck.org, which is one of Time magazine’s “25 websites you can’t live without.”
The key to understanding political rhetoric is to understand that we live in a world of “spin,” which is a polite word for deception. “Spinners mislead by means that range from subtle omissions to outright lies,” write Jackson and Jamieson, “Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts, mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying critical evidence, or just ‘spinning a yarn’—by making things up” (p. ix).
It is not news that politicians purposely fill voters’ heads with disinformation about both their opponents and about their own policies. There are a number of techniques they use to deceive, and applying any of these techniques to the rhetoric you hear will serve as an introduction—a beginning place—for your analysis and evaluation.
The first technique is to recognize claims that are too dramatic. This often occurs when you hear statistics used. To believe statistics, you must know who generated the numbers and how, the credibility of the source from which they were drawn, how current they are, and whether or not they are designed to tell what is happening right now or reveal information that shows a trend. Since it is seldom you get enough information to make even a cursory analysis and evaluation of the statistics politicians bandy about, it is better to remain skeptical. The problem, of course, is that you want to believe the statistics of the politicians you support.
The second technique Jackson and Jamieson label “the dangling comparative.” As an example, they cite George W. Bush’s 2004 TV campaign ads which used the line, “[John] Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.” The obvious conclusion would be that Kerry had voted to raise taxes an alarming number of times, but that is not the case. Bush counted every vote Kerry had cast against a proposed tax cut—which meant voting to leave taxes unchanged. Also, to get the figure 350 he padded the count by including the procedural votes on the same bills. In Bush’s mind, a vote for cutting taxes became a vote for “higher taxes,” but as an example of “the dangling comparative,” he left unanswered the question, “Higher than what?”
The words “larger,” “better,” “faster,” “higher,” and “more” when used to compare two things—left dangling without a statement of what’s being compared—is called a dangling comparative.
The third technique is “the superlative swindle,” or the use of adjectives or adverbs that elevate a situation or circumstance to its highest or extreme degree—superior to all others. The point is to be on the lookout for claims such as “biggest in history” or “smallest ever.” Just as succumbing to the other techniques, being convinced by superlatives can lead you to make shallow political decisions.
The “Pay You Tuesday” con is the fourth technique. Politicians will promise you anything today—especially something you desire a great deal—if you will just vote for him or her. The con is that you won’t have to pay for whatever it is until Tuesday—if ever. You can’t promise new social programs without mentioning the future costs to taxpayers. You can’t promise reduced taxes without mentioning future deficits or program cuts. Pay on Tuesday means your kids will pay.
The fifth technique is the blame game. People who find their own position weak or indefensible often attack. Casting blame is always a clue that the attacker may need a closer look than the person being blamed. Bush blamed greedy lawyers as a major factor in the rising cost of health care—a claim that was disputed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Liberals blame “big oil companies” when gasoline prices shoot up; conservatives blame liberals for being “soft on crime.” The incumbent president is always blamed when the economy goes soft or the stock market tanks. When you hear people casting blame, take a close look at their facts.
“Glittering Generalities” is the sixth technique. These are attractive sounding, but vague terms. The words “middle class” are just such words, and you are unlikely to find a candidate who isn’t for the middle class. Why? Because, in America, so few people think of themselves as lower-class or upper-class. One candidate will proclaim that he or she will “fight for America’s middle class,” while another will promise to “target tax cuts to the middle class.” Think about it: how does a candidate define “middle class”? Other glittering generalities—and there are many—include “affordable housing,” a “right to privacy,” “family values,” or “dignity,” “honor,” “freedom,” “integrity,” and “justice.” When you hear them, ask what is meant.
The list of deceptive techniques, of course, could go on and on, but these are some common ones. Rather than just finding examples of the techniques in use, which shouldn’t take long, it is more important to listen closely to what is being said, be skeptical of what you hear, and be critical and evaluative whether the candidate is your own or an opponent. Spin or no spin, this is politics!
______________________________________________________________________________
See “The Politics of Rhetoric v. Reality” by eriposte at the website “the left coaster” at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011878.php The essay there is dated Sunday, February 3, 2008, and details the experience when the reality of politics overwhelms the promise of rhetoric.
Check out the website “Rhetorica” at http://www.rhetorica.net/ The essay there is entitled “Rhetoric: Press-Politics Journal.”
For a highly academic (but wonderful) article entitled “On Objectivity and Politics in Rhetoric,” see Michael Calvin McGee’s essay in the American Communication Journal (Volume 4, Issue 3, Spring 2001), to be found at http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss3/special/mcgee.htm
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact Richard L. Weaver II
And yet . . . the American people seemed to be taken in by these obvious techniques over and over without regard to facts. Such is life!
ReplyDeleteThank you maxryan for your comment. Your observation is not just astute but accurate and to the point. The American people have a number of characteristics when it comes to judging speeches whether they are political or not. Delivery reins supreme because it is easy to evaluate and assess. People have difficulty looking below the surface because they don't know what to look for, they don't know how to judge whatever they discover, and too often I'm afraid, they are lazy listeners. Because they ARE taken in by obvious techniques doesn't mean they SHOULD BE taken in by obvious techniques, and anything that can be done to educate, instruct, and teach them what to look for, how to look for it, and ways to evaluate and assess it should be taken, of course. But, in the end I'm afraid we are left with precisely your observation, "Such is life!" The real question becomes, then, how can you/we help society advance? Are there any ways?
ReplyDeleteYes . . . there are ways and it still begins with writing. The blogosphere has been accused of many sins but there are positives. Truths are sorted out very quickly (see Dan Rather) and investigations can take place in a shorter period of time (however, don't assume the first piece of the investigation is the only piece). This all requires writing and the best writers still are rising to the top. They receive the most page views and in turn get the most exposure which leads to old media coverage. The number of major stories germinating in the blogosphere over the past year are almost too many to count. So, there are ways and now so many ways to get involved! There are many things wrong with the internet but this new world media is not one of them (despite protestations to the contrary!).
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of depending on blogs to get below the surface if there is something to find below the surface. The only problem is, I'm afraid, that many bloggers are just as captivated by the superficial, vacant, empty-headed rhetoric --- especially when it is effectively delivered --- as the rest of the public. It takes effort to go below the surface, energy to search for evidence, and labor, too, to understand and evaluate what is discovered. This is no lightweight, frivolous pursuit, and I wonder how many bloggers are truly up to the task?
ReplyDelete