The persuasion of any "cause group" can be usefully analyzed with this predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk":

(1) the Threat; (2) the Bonding; (3) the Cause; (4) the Response.

Threat	Bonding	Cause	Response

1. The Threat.

Persuaders are problem-makers who intensify a threat by using words (warnings, name-calling, horror stories) and images (atrocity pictures) to intensify the threat to the group and the evil of the leader of the Other. Persuaders know that people have predictable fears, summed up here in one sentence: "We fear that someone stronger (DOMINANCE) will take away our life (DEATH), our possessions (DESTRUCTION), our territory (INVASION), our freedom (RESTRICTION); or that someone else has more (INJUSTICE); or that a human system will break down (CHAOS).

2. The Bonding
.
No matter what threats or causes are involved, the three basic themes in bonding actions are the same, involving: Unity ("united we stand"), Loyalty ("be true to your . . . "), and Pride ("we're number one . . .").Bonding activities, relating to both the present and the past, involves many kinds of organized group activities (teams, parades, picketing, chanting, singing, wearing uniforms).Such activities are important not only for gathering the group together, but also for keeping it together, ready for action. Once a group is bonded, a structure and organization comes into being. Individuals often gain self-esteem from joining such groups. People, especially leaders, have roles to play and jobs to protect. So, bonded groups need a sense of movement and progress, often obtained by introducing new threats and new causes.

3. The Cause.

A cause involves a sense of duty to defend someone from a threat and gain a benefit. People working for a cause often increase their own self-image and have a sense of moral superiority, self-righteousness. ("We are informed and good; they are ignorant and evil.") Causes often conflict, sometimes directly, more often indirectly. Opponents often disagree on what is the main issue. Dominance, or power, is sometimes the "hidden agenda." Related causes often cluster, so group-bonding attempts often overlap. Cause rhetoric can sometimes be controlled, like a thermostat, by organized groups, but sometimes gets out of control, like a wildfire, because individuals may internalize a strange mix of messages and respond in violent ways.

4. The Response

Effective cause group rhetoric usually identifies specific actions to be taken by the receptive audience. Often, an urgency plea is used, together with some common triggering words.

Not all political rhetoric is a pep talk. Sometimes, as on many TV spot ads during an election campaign, we simply see the basic pattern of a "pitch": stressing attention-getting (especially, simple name recognition); confidence-building (that the person is trustworthy, competent, benevolent); perhaps, some benefits-promised, some "issues" (desire-stimulating); then, asking voters, now (urgency), for a simple, one-time (response): vote for .....

In contrast, a "pep talk" calls for committed collective action. Emotional intensity and group bonding are the two prominent features of a "pep talk."

But, such analysis does help us to sort out some very complex emotional arguments, to identify the examples, and to define the key issues.

As average citizens, neither you nor I will ever have access to the inner circles of power in politics, governments, or among the professional persuaders of the many organized cause groups which target us as receivers of the messages. But, we can prepare ourselves by learning some of the basics used by all.

Our understanding of predictable patterns may help us defend ourselves from being deceived or exploited by others, or from being self-righteous or narrow-minded ourselves. From our understanding of how others also see their roles, we may gain tolerance, perhaps compassion.