The liberal bloggers at Sozadee.com discuss the dangers of attacking politicians for their style of speech, intelligence, or articulateness here in North America. Those of us who remember Jean Chretien's recent 10+ years as Prime Minister of Canada know what they mean: if your target has any political skills, it ends up backfiring big time.
Great post, read it in full because the political war stories convey aspects that don't fully come across here. As Chris Bray put it: "Most people can smell contempt" - and many see it aimed at them as well as the candidate. I'm thinking about all this in the context of my recent "Anybody But These Guys" post, and trying to reconcile the two.
UPDATE: I think it's becoming clearer to me now. My further thoughts here....
Paul Brinkley makes some good points in the comments, including the inability of Sozadee.com to steer clear of the very contempt for the public that the article they quote just warned against.
The more I think about it, the more I also think that there's more to the "say why" exception Brinkley cites. They seem to have said why in some of the examples over at Sozadee, and they said why for Ronald Reagan too - but it was always a disaster for his opponents.
Clearly, something's missing from the formula. So let me take a crack at fleshing it out:
[ a ] To use this attack, your polity must be in a crisis-type situation where an articulate leader is seen as critical to its success (this helped elect Chretien's long-time boss, Pierre Trudeau, during the years of Quebec separatism). This is the foundation.
[ b ] If you're the target's opponent, you must also have a strong approach to dealing with the problem that inspires widespread public confidence. If your approach is seen as soft, you're wide open to having your 'simple' opponent peg you as all talk and no/poor action, and if they're any good you're toast.
[ c ] Couch the attack directly in terms of the crisis and its requirements. If you're a direct opponent, you might even do it by promoting your positive virtues in these areas, and asking the public which candidate gives them more confidence. This makes the point without direct attacks.
As an outside commenter, you'll need to show A & C. As an opponent, A-C are all required or the attack is likely to backfire.
I think there's more.
[ d ] Given these top 2-3 requirements, recognize that if your target is a great speaker (even if not hugely bright) or very decisive (even if not a great speaker), you face higher hurdles if you wish to persuade anyone.
[ e ] Attitude matters. A sneering attitude will produce the wrong effect, even if anything else is in order.... for exactly the reason that it speaks to, inb Chris Bray's words, "profoundly elitist notions of citizenship and leadership."
Thoughts?
[JK: VT, there's a thread within the last 2 days for "Bush's 10 Biggest Mistakes". Your post would have been on topic and relevant there, but it has no relation to this post. Enforcing the Comments policy re: relevance]
I like that the article within the article doesn't say "don't say X is stupid", but rather, "if you say X is stupid, you have to say why". That leaves the matter open for those rare cases when X really is dumb.
What I don't like, however, is Chris Bray's response to the article within the article: "And, given half a chance by Kerry and his handlers, this 'Shrub' will take it all; especially if no one in the 'red states cares that they are being conned out of their vote."
He just responded to a warning about the perils of insulting the people, by implying that the people are too dumb to realize they're being duped? Gruh.
Yeah, I noticed that one too. But then, I expect that from the MSM these days.
The more I think about it, the more I think there's more to the "say why" exception. They seem to have said why in some of the examples Sozadee cites, and Ronald Reagan was open to attack here, but it was always a disaster for his opponents.
I suspect you'd have to:
[a] Be in a crisis-type situation where being articulate is seen as critical to the country's success (this helped elect Chretien's long-time boss, Pierre Trudeau, during the years of Quebec separatism);
[b] If you're the target's opponent, you must have a strong approach to dealing with the problem that inspires widespread public confidence. If your approach is seen as soft, you're wide open to having your 'simple' opponent peg you as all talk and no/poor action, and if they're any good you're toast.
© Couch the attack directly in terms of the crisis and its requirements. If you're a direct opponent, you might even do it by promoting your positive virtues in these areas, and asking the public which candidate gives them more confidence. This makes the point without direct attacks.
As an outside commenter, you'll need to show A & C. As an opponent, A-C are all required or the attack is likely to backfire.
I think there's more.
[d] Given these top 2-3 requirements, recognize that if your target is a great speaker (even if not hugely bright) or very decisive (even if not a great speaker), you face higher hurdles if you wish to persuade anyone.
[e] Attitude matters. A sneering attitude will produce the wrong effect, even if anything else is in order.
Thoughts?
According to political legend, the donkey symbol of the Democratic party originated when Jackson's Whig opponents stooped to calling him "Andrew Jackass". Jackson got good political mileage by capitalizing on this snobbery. New England elites thought it was funnier than hell, but they had to pay dear for that joke.
My mother in law, who will be voting for Bush, despises Bush's verbal gaffes, etc. Indeed, she is a stickler regarding the "proper" use of language (verbal or written). Given the popularity of such books as Eats, Shoots and Leaves, I think that this is a common attitude.
Let me take it from the other side - attacking an opponent with an overly fancy speaking style. This is relevant because I've seen Republicans/conservatives work up a head of hate or at least extreme irritation, mistrust and scorn over John F. Kerry's voice. My protests, that the guy is not insulting people, he is just speaking the way he speaks, went for nothing.
The first and best way to kill a guy with a posh accent or a fancy speaking style is not to give him a chance to start with. Just put it about in in-group discussions that the fellow is obviously "too much," not given to the proper British style of understatement, or not representative of the way a real all-American type speaks or whatever. Despite his having been right for years when everyone else had been wrong, Churchill was still on the wrong end of this at the start of World War Two. No matter how effective a speaker you are with the public, if your less gifted colleagues in parliament aren't inclined to see it that way - in a parliamentary system, you have a problem.
The next thing you do is hammer the guy relentlessly with being phoney, mannered, fake, even effete, faggy. This worked effectively on Australia's current foreign minister, Alexander Downer. (Hence his being foreign minister, not prime minister.) The fake thing seems to have some traction with American conservatives reacting to John F. Kerry - and I regret to say that this is not because he actually is fake, as demonstrated by his history and the overly ambiguous content of his speech, but because they would assume anyone with his voice and accent to be phoney as a three dollar bill.
From personal experience, I can say this is an exasperating form of attack. You're just talking, using your accent, the only one you've got, and you're going to be attacked relentlessly till you learn somehow to fake a suitably "natural" broad accent that you don't have - and which, if you somehow acquired it would confirm that you are being phoney. Grr!
Anyway, if you know you're going to be attacked like this, it's the path of common sense to avoid doing a lot of the things John F. Kerry has made habits of doing. Also, it helps if you just shut up and toil for a while. Build a solid record to forestall any accusations you are "all fancy talk and no action" before sticking your head above the parapet.
Then of course there's the "counter-jumper" or "big-hat, no cattle" attack if you Just Plain Folks opponent is actually the one with all the money, as will often be the case. (The real rich kids don't grow up with their noses in battered paperback classics, soaking up archaic sentence structures, they're more likely to be, say, crass, boorish oft-inebriated fraternity boys.)
Unless you're operating in an aristocratic or class-system environment where an accent may correspond to real, cashable political assets, I don't think an "educated" accent or rhetorical style is worth anything at all.
And, looking at what John F. Kerry does and yet the poll numbers he still has, I can only assume he's getting that promised +15% or so from relentless mass media support, or even more.
I agree. If one is attempting to persuade, it is not a good plan to show contempt. It makes people defensive and closed to persuasion. Having said that, I do feel a great deal of contempt for Bush which I express in terme of his fake accent, dyed hair, canned responses, psuedo-convictions etc. if I am speaking to someone who sees him the same way I do. But my contempt isn't based on his shallow egotism, lack of , ideas, suseptibility to pressure from extemists, or his pointless, self-indulgent life.
My contempt is based on his actions as President. And that is what I focus on when speaking to a politically naive person who is tempted to vote for him.
I start by asking why the person plans to vote for Bush. People usually say he is fighting terrism. That's easy to refute, especially now that Cheney (the real President) has admitted that Iraq wasn't involved in 911. Sometimes people say that they want a balance budget. That too is laughably easy to refute. As Bush says, judge by the record. Bush's record doesn't meet normal Republican standards. Sometimes people say Bush is a Christian who supports family values. I respond that there is more to morality than sex and that a good Christian wouldn't bring about the unnecesary deaths of over one thousand Americans and be unwilling to admit a mistake.
I can image the Republicans reading this going "Yes, but Bush really wants...." I really think the Republicans on this blog should think long and hard about the moral implications of voting for a man who has never once honestly articulated his real agenda.
Where to begin:
First and foremost when anyone is subjected to insults they will do one of three things:
Now if the goal is to obtain a vote of confidence or a vote for president one must keep these simple facts in mind when speaking to a single person or a populace.
If you insult a single person or populace and that person or populace chooses option 1 then you have lost the vote. Any arguments (no matter how convincing or relevant) as to why you should have that vote are lost simply because the argument is falling on deaf ears.
If you insult a person or populace and that person or populace chooses option 2 then again you have lost the vote. Any arguments (no matter how convincing or relevant) as to why you should have that vote are lost simply because a battle of emotions versus debate of relevancy is being waged.
If you insult a person or populace and that person or populace chooses option 3 you are in a much better position to win the vote. The conversation has been engaged and people are willing to listen as long as they are being heard. They get the feeling that they are participating in a discussion of ideas. (IE debate) When insults are slung option 3 does not happen as often as one would like. Option 2 has the potential for leading to option 3 but option 3 will not happen unless the initiator of insults calls for a truce and that truce is accepted. Rarely will the recipient of insults call for a truce. They will move to option 1 in a losing battle before they choose option 3. In a winning battle they will continue to sling as long as it is effective or until the initiator cries uncle and then move to option 1. A truce by the initiator does not guarantee option 3 because one can certainly accept a truce and take the position of option 1.
I might also note that there is no relevancy in the order of options taken. The order of options is strictly predicated on the responder. I would add that the insult can certainly be constructed in such a manner as to elicit a specific option. I would also note that generally speaking two out three times the result will be disastrous.
Now that I’ve laid out the ground work we can address why dirty politics doesn’t work and does nothing more than polarize instead of sway those whose beliefs are already formed. These votes are already in the bag and pandering to them is a lost cause although one could argue this tactic could serve as an incentive to get the base to polls.
Two things happen to those that can potentially be swayed (people on the fence). One they get disgusted with the candidates and tune them out completely. Forget going to the polls because neither candidate has their attention or interest. Two they weigh the insults and vote for one or the other based on vindictiveness. Neither of these options is a good thing. Potential voters will more than likely choose not to vote since going to the polls based on vindictiveness is a waste of time because neither candidate is going to resolve their issues.
So how do you win votes? You put yourself in the populaces’ shoes and you appeal to the populaces’ concerns. Your ideas and your platform must address populace issues. The basics of how to deliver an effective message is to know your audience. I wouldn’t speak to room full of third graders in the same manner that I would speak to a room full of scientists. It doesn’t matter how persuasive any candidates argument is. If the candidate delivers his message the same way an insurance policy or legislative document reads he loses the populace at large. Simple, clear and concise messages get the attention of the voters. We don’t need to argue about what the meaning of the word “is” is. Side stepping and talking above or down to your audience is a guaranteed loser.
As an aside, of all of the debates that have been conducted to date (I’ve seen them all even the democratic primary debates) last nights was by far the best one yet. The questions posed were asked by the citizens at large. These are the questions the citizens want answered and not what some MSM representative thinks is important.