Questions You Can ask About Political Rhetoric
Classroom teaching aid, pro bono publico, from Persuasion Analysis | http://webserve.govst/edu/pa © 2008 by Hugh Rank

Politicians can intensify their own "good" (and, in aggression) intensify the others' "bad"
by means of repetition, association, and composition.

Repetition
What key words are often repeated? What repeated "mantra" or "talking points" --repeated themes or ideas? What images, pictures, or symbols? What names? What slogans are used? What backgrounds (to repeat the message visually) are used for staged "photo ops"? What planning can be inferred indicating that all speakers are "singing off the same sheet" -- all repeating the same themes, or using the same key words or phrasing? What internal repetition techniques (rhyme, alliteration, anaphora) are used within the phrasing? What clichés, and what stock responses ("stump speeches," "boilerplate") are used in various situations? What repeated activities -- such as rituals, customs, traditions -- are used or known within the group? What frequency is the repetition: how often do you see or hear the message? What duration: how long has it gone on? What intensity: how many, how much? A blitz, a saturation? What effects on the audience? Does the audience recognize, remember? What technology (print, recordings,e-mail) is used to repeat, or to multiply copies?

Association
Are there explicit, direct assertions of membership ("I am... I belong to")? Or, of tastes or opinions ("I like... I believe in")? Are there implicit, indirect suggestions using music, colors, flags, symbols, backgrounds? What associations are used to trigger intense emotions, feelings? (Most obviously: God-on-Our-Side, flag-waving, dead heroes, "plain folks.") What background associations? Often the choice of companions (advisors, friends, celebrities, spouse); of locales (historic sites, shrines, beautiful scenery); of events ("good times" - festivals, fairs; "bad times" - helping at disasters.) Are there any metaphors or analogies (e.g. suggesting imagery of sports, war, battle, journey, nature)? Any "name-dropping": references or allusions to heroes and celebrities (e.g. athletics, historical, religious)?

Composition
What are the key content words: nouns (person, places, things, concepts) and verbs (actions)? The related adjectives, adverbs? What positive claims about self, or negative charges about others, are made? Are they explicitly stated? Implicitly suggested? What generalities? What specifics? What absolutes (e.g. "it is..."); what qualifiers ("perhaps... maybe")? What hypotheticals, conditionals ("if... then")? What figures of speech: Metaphors? Rhetorical questions? Hyperbole (overstatement)? Litotes (understatement)? Puns? Irony? What nonverbals (e.g. smiles, frowns, tone of voice, backgrounds)? What sentence patterns are used: balanced, parallel structures? Climactic order? How are the larger structures (speeches, paragraphs, essays) organized? Are the ideas clear, coherent? What are the openers, closers, transitionals? What sequence of ideas? What proportion? What emphasis? What overall strategy? What wider context? <> <> Political and religious rhetoric often suggests a larger story, script, storyline, or narrative featuring "You" -- acting in a role as part of a group (a cause, a movement, a political party, a church) in a wider social context. A role implies a belief (a basic worldview), a purpose (goal, direction) and a plan (a process, a way, a script, steps to be taken) to get there, using certain behaviors (specific acts, jobs, tasks, duties to be done), and certain rules (a code of conduct, a list of "shoulds") to be followed. Are these stated or implied?

 

 

 





Questions You Can ask About Political Language
Classroom teaching aid, pro bono publico, from Persuasion Analysis | http://webserve.govst/edu/pa
 Politicians can downplay their own "bad" (and, in aggression) downplay the others' "good"
by means of omission, diversion, and confusion.

Omission
What disadvantages, drawbacks, hazards have been omitted? Are there any unwanted, harmful side-effects: unsafe, unhealthy, uneconomical, inefficient, unneeded? Are there any relevant omissions about the people involved, concealing: intentional illegality (crimes, scandals), or unintentional incompetence (mistakes, failures, ignorance)? Any concealed "conflicts of interest"? Any hidden agendas, favoritism, nepotism? Are there any relevant omissions about proposed plans, programs, or policies? Any cover-ups hiding past errors, carelessness, neglect, cost overruns, options ignored, criticism suppressed; or future risks, unsound estimates, potential dangers? What issues get less time, less attention, or are totally ignored? Is there any "source" omission, when the relevant authorship or ownership is omitted: e.g. an anonymous rumor, an unsigned letter; or a fake name (common on the Internet when vulgar or predatory intent is concealed); or a "front organization" (in politics, a partisan group concealed behind a neutral, bland, inoffensive name); in business, corporations hidden behind obscure acronyms or names. People (and corporations) have a right to advocate or to support their side financially, but not a right to conceal their support. Any omissions about intended purpose? Any ulterior motives, "hidden agendas"? Any illegal or immoral covert actions? Any concealed benefits, payoffs, which will go to supporters now or later? Any "revolving door" payoffs-- hidden and delayed -- in which ex-politicians or retired generals become high-paid lobbyists or executives with companies they favored while in power? Any secret agreements, "back room deals," sub rosa, under the table bribes, favors? "Follow the dollar" is the first rule for investigative journalists who, by carefully analyzing the budget or financial records, can often expose relevant omissions. Any restrictions, bans, or censorship of contrary views? Any suppression of contradictory evidence? Any silencing or "disappearing" of opponents? Any euphemisms used to hide, or to lessen a "bad"? (e.g. a"gift" or a "donation" for a bribe) Are "half-truths," "stacking the deck," quotes-out-of-context used to distort, to conceal? Are there omissions about the oppositions' merits, or good points?

Diversion
Diversion occurs when time, effort, or money is spent on unimportant issues, trivial things, on side-issues instead of on the main issues. Are there ad hominem attacks (to the person), instead of the issue? Are there ad populum appeals (to the public), focusing on the audience's emotional feelings (stirring up "gut issues" fears, anxieties; hopes, desires)? Are there ad misericordium appeals by the speaker for pity or sympathy ("poor me") ? Is there a "pointing to another wrong"? Any evasions, steering clear, or changing the subject away from problems? Any alibis, excuses? Any "red herrings" -- false trails, noisy distractions? Is there an emphasis on a minor "good": style over substance, cosmetic superficialities? In attacks, any "nitpicking" or "hairsplitting" about petty items? Is there any "attacking a straw man" - focusing on a non-argument, or a weak minor point? Are there any pleasant distractions: humor, jokes, entertainments (like ancient Rome's "bread and circuses" policy) to divert public attention from other issues?

Confusion
Are any words unclear, uncommon, unfamiliar? Are technical words (jargon), or vague generalities, ambiguous words, or euphemisms used inappropriately to conceal the "bad"? Are there "shifting definitions" (equivocations)? Are statements too wordy, roundabout, indirect, rambling (circumlocution)? Are the examples used representative? Typical? Sufficient? Are comparisons used within the same category? Are analogies clear, appropriate? Are there any irrational statements, illogical acts, invalid linking of ideas, non sequiturs? Any inconsistencies, or contradictions, within the text, or with past words and deeds? Any factual errors? Are there any "double messages" (verbal/nonverbal incongruence)? Are there frequent or constant changes, variations, or revisions (in plans, reports, purposes)? Are statistics (and charts, graphs, computer print-outs) accurate, clear, and meaningful? Are estimates (of unknowns, future forecasts) reasonable, probable, based on reliable evidence? Are systems too complex: too many parts, too many processes, too many intersections? Are things disorganized, incoherent, chaotic, or out of sync? Are the potential benefits and risks clear? Are the goals and priorities clear or vague, fixed or shifting? Do people feel confused, overloaded, weary, burned out? Does anyone offer an easy answer, a simple solution ("trust me") to solve a complex problem.

Classroom teaching aid, pro bono publico, from Persuasion Analysis | © 2008 by Hugh Rank | More at http://webserve.govst/edu/pa