Download How to and Why to Analyze Political Rhetoric

1
How to and Why to Analyze Political Rhetoric
People tend to label their own messages as persuasion while the other side’s they call
propaganda. We tend to think of our arguments as more educational in value while the other side—
especially foreign governments we don’t like—as trying to indoctrinate us with propaganda. So we see
propaganda or indoctrination in a negative, or largely pejorative sense. When a side is called out in
their arguments, most will claim they are only attempting to educate the public as to the facts
surrounding a case. Political rhetoric certainly falls inside this realm of influence.
Political persuasion is hard to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see bits and
pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news. It is not complete; it is not sequential; it has been
edited by others and we see it later. Furthermore, we are biased; everyone comes with their own set
of attitudes and ideas about politics.
In addition, the content of political persuasion is intrinsically more complex and emotionally
more charged, than the commercial persuasion of advertising. However, to counter apathy and
cynicism about politics, all students--all citizens--in a democratic society need more instruction in the
basic analysis of political persuasion. Some people are better persuaders than others. But until
recently, things were relatively equal in a persuasion transaction. In the past we relied solely on our
intelligence, our wit, our persuasive strategy and other like skills. But in today's political world
computers can store massive amounts of information and can be retrieved instantly for organizing a
persuasive message in little time. Additionally, money, the mass media access, and organized
campaign teams are available to any professional persuader.
Every government, every political party, every religious group, and very "cause" group now
has the ability to combine sophisticated techniques, psychological insights, and the new technology to
target on people untrained in persuasion. We must find ways to counterbalance, new ways to teach
and inform the largest possible audiences about the techniques of persuasion. Citizens can better
cope with persuaders of any kind by recognizing the predictable benefit-promising behavior of
persuaders.
Political language can be analyzed in many ways. It is wise to start out by simply focusing on
what is being said and how. Additionally, it helps if we can anticipate the basic content, and if we can
recognize the common form or pattern of reasoning.
Some teachers focus on teaching metaphors (war, sports, medicine, etc.) while others may be
interested in omissions or diversionary tactics like ad hominem and red herrings, etc. Either way, and
probably both, should be taught and let the student decide what is best for them.
Conservative Political Rhetoric
In general, this is the rhetoric that appeals to the "haves" who seek to keep the good
(protection) and to avoid the bad (prevention). Most patriotic pleas call for a defense, arousing the
nation to keep or to protect the good.
Conservative rhetoric is the rhetoric of the establishment; justifying the way things are,
defending the status quo. Generally, this is the rhetoric of whoever is in the White House, the State
House, and in City Hall. It is the rhetoric of corporations, organizations, and bureaucracies; of those
people who have the power and the control.
Conservative rhetoric stresses satisfaction and contentment, appreciation and enjoyment of
the existing "goods"; pride in the group, its history, traditions, and heroes; and in its present
accomplishments and leaders. In political persuasion, the incumbent party campaigns on their
2
achievements and says, "keep the good…don't change horses in the middle of the stream."
Conservative rhetoric encourages the self-image of being the defender of the society (the
nation, the culture, the faith, the family). Warnings, precautions, and anxieties are focused on the main
threat--the fear of loss. Loss that might come suddenly by seizure, by being conquered, or
overwhelmed. Or loss that might come slowly, by decay by attrition, or by infiltration. Many patriotic
pleas call for defense, arousing the nation to keep or protect that what is good.
It is reasonable to expect that people who have a "good" will want to keep it, and avoid the
"bad" of losing it or having it taken away.
Liberal or Progressive Rhetoric
This is the rhetoric of the "have nots" who seek to change the "bad" and get the "good." This
is the rhetoric of dissatisfaction; of discontent and anger for not having the "good." But it is also the
rhetoric of hopes, dreams, change, progress, and improvement. It not only attacks the existing evils,
but also holds out hope for a better future.
Liberal rhetoric stresses the problems of the existing order and criticizes the caretakers,
especially the corruption (usually intentional) and/ or the incompetence (usually unintentional).
Progressive rhetoric is usually the rhetoric of the "outs," the opposition, the protestors and the
picketers; the people who are not in power. Such rhetoric ranges from reformers who want to change
or fix-up the parts of the existing system, to the revolutionaries who want to destroy the system and
replace it with a better one.
Progressive/Liberal rhetoric encourages the self-image of being a defender of the poor, the
underprivileged, the unfortunate, the victims, and the overburdened taxpayers. Within their supporters,
progressive rhetoric often suggests fears of stasis (of being stopped stalled, or thwarted). This might
be done suddenly by means of being banned or controlled; or it could happen slowly by means of
being exhausted or burned-out.
It is reasonable to expect that people who have don't have it "good" will want to get it, and if
they have it "bad" they will want to get rid of it.