has a cluster of related words and images, noted here in terms of: name-calling (attack words, demonizing the enemy);"horror stories"& "atrocity pictures" (telling and showing what the enemy does, or will do). Note the common problem/solution sequence: Threat (stirring up emotions, intensifying fears); Bonding (getting together a group); for a Cause (a sense of duty, idealistic purpose); Response (targeted action). Such "committed collective action" is here called the "pep talk."
from Persuasion Analysis | Hugh Rank | ©2008 | http:// faculty.govst.edu/pa [Home]
Naming & describing the threats, the feared actions, and the agents.
abuse
avaricious
careless, carelessness
cheat
confusion
corrupt, corruption
crooks
deceitful, deceive
defraud
devious
dishonest
disorganized
graft
greedy
ignorant
inability
incoherence, incoherent
incompetent
incompetence
ineffective
inefficient
inept
lazy
mendacious
mismanage, mismanagement
misuse
negligence, negligent
spendthrifts
squander
steal
tricky
unqualified
unskilled
untruthful
waste, wasteful
Chaos
The feared threat is any breakdown of a human system which can affect
our well-being.
Here, chaos will be used to suggest any problems of socio-political-economic
systems, but most especially those associated with domestic politics.
Systems breakdowns are basically either intentional (corruption)
or unintentional (incompetence); thus, the basic claim made by
any candidate can be summarized in one sentence: "I
am competent and trustworthy; from me, you'll get more "good"
and less "bad.
The threat may be intangible or indirect (such as in inflation,
or devaluation of currency), but the harmful effects are nevertheless
real, and felt. Mismanagement of the political system or the economy can
produce a loss of money or possessions to the individual.
In most political campaigns, the incumbent administration
claims the systems work well; the opposition party charges that the systems
do not work well, and there should be change, reform ("It's time
for a change!"). Each side often provides supporting evidence
for such claims and charges.
Situations and circumstances change, however. In the
2005 Social Security argument, for example, the Republicans
were the elected incumbents, but were trying to change a program which
the Democrats had built during FDR's New Deal as a "safety net,"
an insurance program for the elderly. Social Security (as well as Medicare
and Medicaid) were very popular programs long identified with the Democrats,
especially by an older generation with memories of the Great Depression.
Republicans in 2005 used a scare tactic, with threat words of intensity
and urgency, that the system was in an immediate "crisis"
and would "collapse" unless their "reforms"
(privatization, profit-centered savings) were made quickly. Democrats
responded also with intense words, that the Republican changes would be
a "catastrophe" and "destroy"the insurance
program. Both sides offered reams of diverse statistics, estimates, and
predictions as their supporting evidence. Republicans claimed that the
system was poorly designed, hurts younger workers, and needs to be fixed;
Democrats claimed that the proposed changes are designed to pay off "Special
Interests" (Wall Street, brokers) who will reap the benefits while
the individual investors take all the risks. Both sides cast themselves
as heroes in a "rescue scenario" or narrative in which
they save others (the young, or the old) who are being victimized or jeopardized.
Conservative rhetoric of those who HAVE social system benefits (order, efficiency, integrity, a well-run system) stresses protection (keep the "good") and prevention (avoid the "bad"). HAVES fear loss (disorder, breakdown, corruption).
Progressive rhetoric of those who HAVE-NOT social system benefits (order, integrity) stresses acquisition (get the "good") and relief (change, get rid of the "bad." HAVE-NOTS fear continued deprivation (disorder, corruption).
Images common in "atrocity pictures"
of systems confused (red tape, paperwork piles, stuffed files, run-arounds, maze, puzzles, knots);
of systems not working (garbage in streets, potholes in roads, pollution, blackouts, bridges broken, crime, riots, looting, arson, muggers);
of waste (lazy workers, shovel-leaners, cobwebs on sleepers, clock-watchers, "frills");
of stealing (money-stuffed pockets, "fat cats," bags of gold);
of secrecy and conspiracy (back room deals, under the table bribes, pals, cronies);
of taxpayer as victim: overburdened, overworked (carrying heavy load, climbing hill), overtaxed (empty pockets, pauper, beggar, naked in a barrel), often juxtaposed next to bureaucrats, or of politician's luxury bought by the "hard-earned dollars" of taxpayer.
Anarchy: The most vivid recent example of chaos happened during the Iraq war. American troops entered Baghdad and, on April 10, 2003, symbolically pulled down the huge statue of Saddam Hussein. The old regime had collapsed and no civil authority existed to stop common crimes. With no law and order, there was anarchy -- an orgy of looting , arson, destruction, and murder as criminals took advantage of the resulting chaos. Ordinary citizens were unable to go outside safely and feared home invasion by criminals. Five years later, the city was still not under control.
America has had its share of city riots and looting in the past (e.g. Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles). The primary purpose of the National Guard had been to provide state governments with a quickly mobilized armed force to help in such local emergencies and to enforce law and order. Now, with the Guard being used more frequently in foreign wars, away from home, a debate has begun about its proper role.
