When a political party is making its case by, in effect, not really making a case at all but creating an impression, it can be hard to pinpoint errors of reasoning. Indeed, a really good campaign will only use slogans and arguments that are irrefutable.What I like about the article is that it does a pretty good job of highlighting the real tension I feel between the need to make your political position attractive, and presenting the best reasons for your political position. Ideally the latter would be the best way to do the former, but unfortunately this might not be the case.
Baggini doesn't offer any solutions. One good question, I think, is what the best response is to this sort of rhetorical device. Do you call out its implications? Or do you reply with your own rhetoric? Or do you ridicule it? Or does it vary from case to case?
4 comments:
I think that politicians using slippery political rhetoric is inevitable, and not always a bad thing. Persuading people that your position is better is a basic political act, and rhetoric will always be a part of that. It'd be nice if people were more interested in substantive arguments and policy details than they are, but they aren't, and I don't think there was ever really some golden age where people based their political decisions primarily on purely rational assessments of the issues. One of the problems that I think we face today is that cutting through the rhetoric should be a key role of the press, but they've almost completely failed in that regard. This is one of the reasons that I think the political blogosphere is such a good development; there's quite a few good websites doing the work that the press hasn't done; though of course even the biggest blogs have nowhere near the reach and influence of the big papers or networks.
I guess I don't get too worked up about this aspect of politics because I think that if the rhetoric becomes too detached from reality it ends up sounding more ridiculous than anything else (and when that's the case ridiculing the rhetoric is probably a great response). It's appropriate that the Republican use of "strength" is what touched off this topic, as it's a perfect example. The R's ran on being the strong party, the party that was going to keep the terrorists from killing you, very successfully in '02 and eked out a win in '04. They tried it again in '06--and got clobbered. Why? Because they completely failed to be strong and protect the people of New Orleans; because the Iraq war (which in November '04 a lot of people hadn't quite yet been able to admit was lost) was by then clearly a colossal, tragic mistake. Now every time Bush goes on tv to talk about how the weak democrats want to surrender to the terrorists, his approval ratings go down and the dems go up. As frustrating as American public opinion can be, I think that we generally get most things right...eventually.
I'm not sure if there is a contradiction between making an impression and making an argument. If the goal of politics is to create a health care system that better serves the needs of sick people then it is clear that vague appeals to “strength” or “equality” are not helpful. However, I think one thing that we all seem to agree on is that politics is also a struggle to determine the values that we wish to collectively promote. I don’t think this project should necessarily be accomplished by rational argumentation. Impressionistic statements that associate a party with a “philosophy of strength” are a means of symbolically representing the values that are inextricable from action and policy. The symbol of strength or the way it is invoked by republicans does not appeal to me, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with this type of rhetoric. Not only is it useful for gathering votes, but it addresses the very real issue of how people construct meaning in their lives. It is quite possible that it is more important for many Americans to live in a “strong” country than to have adequate health care.
My sense is that the left has not been as skilled as the right in articulating a clear set of values. In different posts values such as happiness, equality, and justice (I think) have all been mentioned. I’m not sure if it is enough to say, “The democratic party is based in a philosophy of equality. Economic equality, personal equality, and cultural equality.” Maybe this works. It would certainly work for some people and this style of rhetoric should not be abandoned. However, for myself a phrase like this is really too stale to effectively convey a sense of the value of equality. Perhaps this where the drive for a new language comes from. A need to refresh or re-present an idea. The new language is not necessarily for new values. It helps us see old values again. We have heard certain words and phrases too many times. Peace and Love become “hippy dippy.” Patriotism becomes the property of the right. Do we want to communicate in a language in which love and peace are inextricably linked with a questionable subculture? What about a language in which love of home is linked with an even more unpleasant subculture?
I’m not sure if I’m ready to articulate the actual form of a new language, but I think there are a number of possibilities. Music and images are a good place to start. Different types of writing can also be useful. The problem with statements like Romney’s on strength is not in the fact that they are impressionistic, but in the impressions that they seek to make.
DM--I think that the liberal left in the states has a harder time coming up with a concise, catchy statement of beliefs because we tend to embrace nuance and empiricism a lot more. Republicans can sum up their philosophy quite simply: Free markets, low taxes, a strong military and Christian values and everyone knows pretty much what they mean (and they keep saying the same shit over and over, even when it no longer matches up with reality). There was a whole huge debate in the liberal blogosphere after the '04 elections, complete with at one point a competition (I think the winner won a subscription to the magazine hosting it), to devise a similarly brief statement of what the left believed in. In the end, no one was particularly happy with even the best versions. I think that when you're actually concerned about making policies that work and representing a very diverse group of people (much more diverse than the Republican base) it just becomes harder to craft really effective rhetoric. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try. I pretty much agree with your last comment; a lot of traditional liberal rhetoric is kinda stale and worn out, and may need to be re-formulated, even if the ideas/values being advocated for are solid. But at the same time we need to remember that whatever reformulation takes place needs to appeal to more than just white guys with advanced degrees who've flirted with more radical versions of leftist thought in the past--and we shouldn't be so narcissistic as to believe that if it isn't exactly what we want to hear that it's therefore not worth supporting. Anyways, this is why I'm pretty excited about the '08 election. You've got in Edwards and Obama two of the most charismatic and rhetorically gifted politicians to come along on the Dem side in a while. I think either one of them could come up with just the sort of soaring, inspiring rhetoric needed to convince people that the country needs serious change in direction--if they really want to argue for that.
Well, it's good to hear that not everyone is as jaded as I am. Maybe it'll rub off on me.
I like both of your posts here, DM and TN; I think they address real problems the left has with its rhetoric. I especially liked DM's claim that "The problem with statements like Romney’s on strength is not in the fact that they are impressionistic, but in the impressions that they seek to make." One of the reasons I posted Baggini's article is that it got me wondering about what the best way is to counter such bad impressions. If I understand TN, he thinks that empty or objectionable rhetoric will be seen for what it is in the long run. I think that's probably true, in general, but it's frustrating to have to wait for such rhetoric to die. I'm wondering how one might kill it so we don't have to wait.
There was a bunch of stuff in DM's post about the relationship between values, arguments, and (aesthetic?) impressions. I'd like to go into this a little bit, but if I wrote my thoughts down now it would be too long and maybe not all relevant. I'll think about it and try later.
Post a Comment