Competency is the ability to do the job. As an intellectual virtue, such expertise would include knowledge, logical reasoning, and practical wisdom. Knowledge of information is basic, to be informed rather than ignorant. But, knowledge alone is not sufficient. The intellect must also be able to process this information in an organized, systematic logical method. Practical wisdom, or prudence, is that virtue of being able to apply such knowledge and reasoning appropriately to the situation.

Competency, as used here, would also include physical ability (adequate health, vigor, stamina, and endurance) and the element of willpower, determination. Such qualities prepare someone for dealing with any future circumstances or crises. In popular slogans, the claim is "ready, willing, and able."

The most common way to claim competency is to emphasize experience in similar situations, past achievements and accomplishments: "look at the record.... proven ability." Presidential candidates, for example, will stress their previous experience (as state governors, military officers, business executives, legislators) and their skills in management and leadership.

In an actual political campaign, the "competency" claim can get more complicated. In the 2004 Iowa Democratic race, for example, Howard Dean emphasized his experience of 12 years as Vermont's governor "sitting in the chair, making tough decisions." Not, he said, "in Washington sitting on a committee," a reference to Senator John Kerry's claim about his experience in key Senate committees on foreign affairs. General Wesley Clark stressed his foreign policy and war experience as the commander of NATO during the Bosnian war. In response, President Bush emphasized his Presidential experience during two wars in the past 4 years. In response to that, all the Democrats pointed out that it was the President's lack of experience in foreign relations which helped cause the quagmire in Iraq and the alienation of our allies. But, a major focus in the 2004 election campaign became the issue how the style of men revealed their character:
Kerry: Thoughtful Consideration or Wishy-Washy ? || Bush: Thoughtful Decisions or Gut Instincts?

Being seen as trustworthy results from an established reputation for such related qualities as being honest and truthful, straightforward and sincere, fair and just, brave and courageous, moderate and temperate, reliable and predictable, dependable, loyal and faithful. Such qualities of character, of course, are ideals, absolutes. Again, the reality is that no one is perfect, and we learn to accept others in terms of degree and mix. Ideally, a person should be perceived well in all three qualities (expert, trustworthy, benevolent); in reality, most people are not ideal. So, practical politicians will stress their strong points, while their opponents will be happy to point out their weaknesses.

Traditionally, people have made the distinction between competency and moral virtue. A competent person, one who is expert in skills, may be morally corrupt. As Cardinal Newman expressed it:"Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another...." This may help explain the paradox when President Bill Clinton was perceived by most people to be immoral in his sexual behavior, yet still retained a very high approval rating for his competency in doing his job, in running the country, and for his benevolence: for being "on our side."

In an actual political campaign, the "trustworthy" claim can get more complicated. In the 2004 Iowa Democratic race, for example, after the front-runner Howard Dean came in third place, he gave such an emotional and impassioned speech ("the Iowa screech") to his supporters that, to many people, he seemed "out of control." The TV soundbite of his red-faced tirade was repeated often on the news and mocked by the popular late-night shows. His credibility was seriously damaged: Is this the man who could be trusted, if elected President, to remain calm in a crisis? The credibility of President Bush was also a major issue in the campaign, centered on the WMD issue. A year earlier, the President had used the imminent threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the causus belli for the Iraq war. Could he be trusted again? By Mid-April, Democratic candidate John Kerry had escalated his criticism of Bush's credibility.

Benevolence is the third claim of the core sentence, here meaning that the person is a benefit-giver, or a benefit-promiser: "from me, you'll get...." This claim is the active link between speaker and audience. This isn't simply a passive description, but a claim of being a cause of a desired effect: "I (my party, my plans, my policy) will be the cause of these future good effects."

Politicians (and advertisers) are benefit-promisers. We, their audiences, are benefit-seekers. It's not a one-sided affair. It's a transaction, a mutual relationship. As we sort out the various claims of persuaders, we should remain aware of this two-way transaction. If politicians are "always promising," remember that we are always benefit-seeking. No matter how we define "good" and "bad," we want to get and to keep the "good," and to avoid or to change the "bad."

Expect from the Haves, a conservative rhetoric stressing protection (keep the "good") and prevention (avoid the "bad"). Expect from the Have-Nots, a progressive rhetoric stressing relief (change the "bad") and acquisition (get the "good")

Benevolence claims are usually expressed in terms of being one with the audience: "I'm on your side.... I'm concerned.... I care." Pay attention to the audience addressed. If the message is broadcast to a very diverse audience, the benevolence claims will use very generalized, all-purpose phrasing such as: "fellow citizens," "average person," "hard-working families," "overburden taxpayers." Yet, in context of certain audiences (Haves, Have-nots) and of certain social issues, even generic phrases can be "code words" within the group suggesting conservative or progressive attitudes.

In an actual political campaign, the "benevolence" claim -- of being "on your side" -- can get more complicated. In the 2004 campaign, for example, both Democrats and Republicans charge that the other side is not "on your side," but is "beholden to" special interests. Republicans identify the Democrats special interest supporters as unions ("corrupt union bosses"), trial lawyers ("greedy"), teachers organizations ("incompetent teachers, bloated bureaucrats"), and the like. Democrats identify the Republicans special interest supporters as the wealthy ("tax breaks for the rich"), the big corporations (especially "big oil" and energy companies), and fundamentalist religious groups (well organized and funded). "Energizing the base" is a phrase often used by both sides to describe the rhetoric used bond their loyalists together, "on our side." Persuading the "Undecideds," especially the emerging new Latino middle class, may be the most important aspect of this campaign.

Concerning Trustworthy, the primary charges against Bush were that he was deceitful, deceptive about the reasons for the Iraq war (WMD), untrustworthy now at home and abroad; in his youth, he avoided Vietnam service; Kerry is presented as a genuinely brave war hero, loyal to his companions and his country. The Bush counter-attack against emphasizes Kerry's anti-war activities (Veterans for Peace) associating him with disloyalty.

Concerning Benevolence, Bush claims he is a "compassionate conservative" -- a folksy "aw-shucks" Texas rancher; Kerry charges that Bush is a puppet of the rich, acting on behalf of wealthy corporations; Bush counter-attacks, charging Kerry is acting on behalf of "special interests" (unions, teachers, trial lawyers). Both candidates are wealthy and privileged, Nader charges, both pretending to be populists, plain folks -- "one of us" and "on our side."

PERSONA
Strong Leader | Bold Action | Big Ideas | Peace in World
More Compassionate America | Cares About People Like Me
Leads a Strong Team

On page two:
VALUES
Compassion | Moral Clarity | Responsibility
Opportunity | Ownership

On page three:
ISSUES
Primary: WOT [War on Terrorism] | Homeland | Always Economy
Subordinate: Education | Compassion Agenda | Health
Opportunity | Environment

Rove said that he expected the campaign to be as close as it was in 2000, that the country was as narrowly divided as it was then."

Not for Candidates only!

When Dick Clarke, Chief of Counter-Terrorism, testified at the 9-11 hearings (March 23, 2004), he presented himself as competent (expert, knowledgeable, insider, Anti-Terrorism czar), trustworthy (professional, served 30 years under 4 administrations), and benevolent -- "on our side" (civic duty, serving the country).

When he criticized President Bush's role, there was an unprecedented firestorm of White House criticism , attacking Clarke as being incompetent (did a bad job himself, uninformed, "out of the loop") untrustworthy (grudge, disgruntled employee), and not benevolent, not "on your side," but self-serving ( to make money, to promote his new book Against All Enemies ) and working for others (Kerry, Democrats).

=========================
Press Release (October, 2008) IMAGES & ISSUES
===========
Hugh Rank’s website, Persuasion Analysis (http://faculty.govst.edu/pa) has some clear, cogent teaching aids about ads and political persuasion.
============

“During this election year, one single sentence summarizes the underlying superstructure or core of all campaign rhetoric,” says Professor Hugh Rank, on his website, Persuasion Analysis.

“I’m not making this up.” Rank says, “I’m simply paraphrasing what Aristotle said 2,500 years ago in his Rhetoric about “the art of persuasion.” Based on this traditional source in classical rhetoric, Rank points out that the basic claims in any election campaign can be summarized in one sentence:

"I am competent and trustworthy; from me, you'll get more good and less bad."

Three positive claims about the virtues of the speaker are here. The two most obvious ones are "competent" and "trustworthy" while the other claim is incorporated in a phrase ("from me, you'll get..."), that of being benevolent (a benefit-giver, a "benefactor," of being “on your side.”)

These three basic qualities can have many surface variations: can be directly stated or indirectly suggested, in broad generalizations or specific details, with variations in wording (synonyms, examples, images), proportion and degree (emphasizing a differening mix of the three).

Negative charges In political attacks against the opposition simply reverses this sentence: “My opponent is incompetent and untrustworthy; from him, you'll get more bad and less good."

Aristotle also discussed rational persuasion (logos) and emotional persuasion (pathos), but said that the most effective kind of persuasion was based on what he called the ethos (today, we call this the “projected image") of the speaker as being competent, trustworthy, and benevolent. (Or, as other translators phrase it, as having good sense, good character, and good will.)

Competent

Competency is the ability to do the job: such expertise would include knowledge, logical reasoning, and practical wisdom or prudence. Knowledge is basic, but not sufficient. The intellect must also be able to process this information in an organized, systematic logical method. Furthermore, practical wisdom, or prudence, is that virtue of being able to apply such knowledge and reasoning appropriately to the situation.

Commonly, competency claims emphasize experience in similar situations, past achievements, and accomplishments ("look at the record...”) often stressing prior experience (as state governors, military officers, business executives, legislators), management skills, and leadership.

Competency, however, also includes physical ability (adequate health, vigor, stamina, and endurance) and willpower, determination. Such qualities also prepare someone for dealing with any future circumstances or crises. In popular slogans, the claim is "ready, willing, and able.".)

Trustworthy

Being seen as trustworthy results from an established reputation for such related qualities as being honest and truthful, straightforward and sincere, fair and just, brave and courageous, moderate and temperate, reliable and predictable, dependable, loyal and faithful.

Such qualities of character, of course, are ideals, absolutes. Since the reality is that no one is perfect, we learn to accept others in terms of degree and mix. Practical politicians will stress their own strong points, while their opponents, using negative attack ads, will be happy to point out their weaknesses.

Benevolent

Benevolence means being “on your side...”: as a benefit-giver, or as a benefit- promiser: "from me, you'll get." Benevolence claims are usually expressed in terms of being one with the audience: "I'm on your side.... I'm concerned... I care... I understand... I know how you feel."

This claim is the active link between speaker and audience, a claim of being the cause of a desired effect: " I (my party, my plans, my policy) will be the cause of future good effects."

Political persuaders (and advertisers) are benefit-promisers. We, their audiences, are benefit-seekers. It's not a one-sided affair, but a mutual relationship, a two-way transaction. If people complain that politicians are "always promising” benefits, remember that we are always seeking benefits.

No matter how we define "good" and "bad," we want to get and to keep the "good," and to avoid or to change the "bad."

Consider the audience addressed. If the message is broadcast to a very diverse audience, the benevolence claims will use very generalized, all-purpose phrasing such as: "fellow citizens," “friends,” "average person," "hard-working families," “middle-class,” "overburden taxpayers," “just plain folks," "Main Street”). Yet, for certain audiences and social issues, even generic phrases (values, choice, freedom, patriotism) can be "code words" within the group.

In attacks, both Democrats and Republicans charge that the other side is not "on your side," but is "beholden to" special interests. Republicans usually identify the Democrats’ special interests as unions ("corrupt union bosses"), big government ("Washington, bloated bureaucrats") trial lawyers ("greedy"), and the like. Democrats identify the Republicans’ special interest supporters as the very wealthy ("tax breaks for the rich"), big corporations (especially "big oil" and energy companies, Wall Street), and extremist religious groups (fanatics, zealots).

"Energizing the base" is a phrase often used by both sides to describe the in-house rhetoric used to bond their loyalists together (more cynically, “rattling their cages”). Often, the most intense persuasion (stressing fear, urgency) goes on “under the radar” -- in e-mails, phone calls, word of mouth -- not observed by a more neutral audience

----------

(Why didn't we learn this in school? Because America literally has a Puritan tradition of rhetoric (based on Peter Ramus' anti-Aristotleian ideas) which taught that the rational appeal ("truth") was most important, and that everything else was just decoration -- "fancy words." Can you imagine the reaction of the public (or a school-board) if a school-teacher were to tell a class that emotional appeals were "more effective" than rational ones? Or that a speaker projecting a "good image" can win an argument, even though he's not telling the truth? Aristotle wasn't endorsing such deception, simply describing what people often actually do, not.prescribing what they should do. )