Email the Prez-(Elect)

Posted on November 14, 2008 by

Our new president-elect has a shiny new website. Change.gov. It contains a blog, news, events, a place to apply for a job in the Obama-Biden administration, a place to “share your story,” and that kinda stuff. I’ll admit. I’m intrigued. We’ll have a president with a site dedicated to interaction with people. Hmm.

Obviously, it goes without saying that he personally won’t be messing with his site, but the people who work for him. But, still. I can’t recall any political candidate with a site that so heavily relies on this particular kind of technology or interaction. Of course, this particular kind of technology hasn’t been as prolific–I get that, but I think it’s interesting that I was genuinely surprised when I heard about this website. The word “Really?” certainly came to mind.

I know that I’ve been so trained to expect my political representative to ignore what I have to say, that a site set up to listen specifically to constituents is, well, surprising.

campaign candy

Posted on November 4, 2008 by Kate

Elections are like candy stores for rhetorical critics — or anyone paying attention. From lawn signs to public endorsements, talk shows to chalk art, campaign ads to Facebook rallies… it’s all just so damn tasty.

So, as the polls close, let’s take a moment to think back on all the good times. I think I have to stick with the RNC’s Palin bio as my favorite treat. C’mon — you know the alliterative glory of “Mother, Moosehunter, Maverick” gave you chills (you may have mistaken them for a shudder).

What’s yours? To refresh your memory:

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

The Politics of Motives

Posted on October 9, 2008 by

During the Vice Presidential debate last Thursday, there was a point when I scrambled for a pen and paper, and it was to write down the final two lines of this statement from Senator Joseph Biden:

I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party’s mind, as well as Republicans’, because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.

Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day — he — I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, “What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?” I said, “I’d feel like a jerk.”

He said, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.”

I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment (see the entire transcript here).

It was a strong statement, and it was delivered with force. But I was left thinking about how Biden must understand the difference between judgment and motive or, better yet, how he wanted his audience to believe he understands them.

I promise I’ll try not to talk too much theory, but at any mention of “motives,” my mind immediately travels back to Kenneth Burke, a notoriously difficult-to-comprehend mid-twentieth-century theorist, who would have us believe that the finale of one’s decision or action comes out of a motive regardless of how it may seem. One’s motive, even if unknown to the individual, is what drives a person to act and is what underlies that person’s judgment throughout the process. Motives, in other words, precede and therefore shape judgment.

But this point isn’t what Biden is getting at. In this instance the senator sounds more like Wayne Booth, another scholar, who argued that politics would be more straightforward and productive if politicians would simply agree on their commonalities first and lay out their differences second. If I’ve understood correctly, then, Biden is stating his commonality with all of Congress by saying he does not question a politician’s motives: A politician is elected based on her commonalities with her constituency. A politician is the people. The people are right because they are the people (and please note I’m not advocating circular reasoning here. I’m more so stating a basic assumption of democracy). Therefore, the politician – by virtue of having commonalities with the people who voted for her – automatically has good motives. If you question the motives of a politician, then you question the motives of the people. It’s an idealistic statement that doesn’t complicate itself by taking into account the imperfections of humans and the systems of order we create, but it’s a lovely idea.

Another important distinction Biden’s statement marks is the difference between logic (judgment) and a sometimes-unknowable drive (a person’s motives). Debating at the level of motives can often be fruitless in a Western, outcomes-centered society like our own. (Could you imagine Zen-like Congress?) But during the two presidential campaigns of the current administration, we saw a different move. George W. Bush spoke from his “gut” – not logic, but feeling and faith. His beliefs were undeniable because he felt they were true. And it worked. He’s been President for two terms. Regardless of all the talk about whether the Republicans stole the elections, the fact that so many people believed in his approach speaks volumes.

And so I’m left wondering whether Biden’s divorcing of the faculties of the mind (reason and will) is a move that’s appreciated by the voting public. It’s not a new idea. Certainly not – it’s been around since the Age of Enlightenment. But it’s a shift from the current administration. I understand that social consciousness changes according to its own rules, but if it turns out that the public respects this distinction, I wonder what has driven the shift. The bad marks of the current administration? (And I’m not revealing my own leanings here. The President currently has a job approval rating of anywhere from 28% – 34%.) Or a shift back to the ideals of the separation of Church and State? (Not that believing in one’s gut translates into religion, but both are a matter of faith.) Hmm.

Well, that’s all I’ve got. Questions but no answers. In fact, I have a bunch more questions related to the VP debate:

Journalism: During the first presidential debate, American Cable News Network CNN showed at the bottom of its screen (in the form of a line graph) real-time reactions from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. During the vice presidential debate (and the following second presidential debate), they swapped out the three categories for those of Men and Women. What is CNN News reflecting latest news and breaking news by choosing and televising these distinctions? On the other hand, what is CNN creating in the minds of its viewers by feeding us such content?
Presentation: Folksy versus refined. Which works better in the current climate? How is the current administration (and its two preceding election seasons) affecting our responses? What other (dis)identifications can we point out between current and past political candidates?
Interactions: From the initial greeting of the candidates to their conversation on the stage, who referred to whom by first name? Who spoke directly to the other candidate and when? How did such moves affect the tone and content of the debate?
Taking jabs: The candidates occasionally played with and prodded at the terminologies used by the opposing campaign. When did or didn’t they work? Were there times when the points hit hard but were made at the cost of the candidates’ own standing?

These topics are not by any means exhaustive, but they’ve been on my mind. What’s on your mind?

Holy Mixed Metaphor Batman!

Posted on September 12, 2008 by

In response to Obama’s recent “attack” on Palin (huh?), a McCain campaign spokesperson had this to say:

“We have put a lot of hard work into Gov. Palin, and it is really beginning to pay off. She is proving to be quite adept and flexible in getting across the Republican party’s messages. She’s one tough cookie and the perfect person to put an end to Washington’s spending on pork, and bring home the bacon for the American people.”

Winner.

rhetoric and remembrance

Posted on September 12, 2008 by Kate

Yesterday, as we all well know, was September 11, the 7th anniversary of what has become the touchstone moment of contemporary American (and, to a large degree, international) politics. I didn’t watch the coverage. This is a hard day for my family and me every year, and I have learned that the rhetoric surrounding–overwhelming, really–this date tends to infuriate and sadden me. My usual critical glee at fascinating ploys and manipulative wordplay can’t withstand the very real pain and anger that surround September 11.

So I managed to avoid most of it, until we turned on BBC America news (incidentally, the only news I can generally stomach) where they showed a clip of Obama and McCain at the WTC site (now “ground zero,” a phrase that I think it criminally overused and under-examined). I was fascinated to discover that on this day, and apparently only this day, “All of us came together on 9/11 — not as Democrats or Republicans — but as Americans.” This statement, released jointly by the competing presidential campaigns, brings up an interesting question:

Um, aren’t Democrats and Republics every day? Shouldn’t that identity, that community, trump party allegiance EVERY FREAKING DAY?

How is it that candidates for president of the United States are allowed to pat themselves on the back for acting, for one day only, as if they are more than just candidates for president of Democrats or Republicans?!

I will now refrain from further ranting about the callous and offensive use of September 11 in political stumping. But you should feel free… every freaking day.

clichés, context, juxtaposition, kairos, and . . . pigs?

Posted on September 10, 2008 by

The age-worn expression, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” has plenty of similarity with how rhetoric is often conceived. When somebody says, “oh, that’s mere rhetoric,” they’re essentially saying, “you’re all style and no substance; don’t let cosmetic changes distract from the real (and often ugly) truth.”

So the recent mild-media-frenzy of Barack is paralleled with Harlot in many ways. Here’s a sequence summary: Obama uses the colloquialism in reference to McCain policy; the line gets picked up as a reference to Palin (McCain is “sexifying” his campaign by choosing her); McCain campaign releases a press statement calling the comment “sexist”; it is then put in juxtaposition with Palin’s lipstick reference at the RNC by media pundits; bloggers talk about how Obama called Palin a pig. Like a harlot who has been dressed up to resemble something respectable, a filthy pig is dressed up with cosmetics to resemble, well, anything else.

Whew.

So, in honor of this close relation between the cliché and how rhetoric is popularly conceived, I’ve compiled some texts below that might serve as a jumping off point for a discussion on taking lines out of context and attempts at framing in campaigning.

Let’s start with the “original,” with some added Fox news footage at the end. I ask that you pay attention to how the remarks are contextualized and juxtaposed:

It’s rather remarkable to watch the assumptions flying about within Fox’s framing of the comment, calling it “name-calling,” “engaging the vice-president,” and “going after Palin.” Also, any thoughts on the conspiratorial rhetoric used in the news footage that follows? By juxtaposing it with some remarks about Biden, Hannity frames it as long-term plan, asking, “Do you still think there’s not a strategy here?” Also, notice that Hannity justifies the discussion itself with juxtaposition, saying the audience clearly knew what Obama was referring to in light of Palin’s recent RNC line (footage of which, please notice, was placed before Obama’s in the editing, giving it that “in-direct-response-to” feel).It’s odd they didn’t show this footage:

But even if they did show it, a lot of their claim would still stand (strangely), simply because of how they juxtaposed the comments and framed it as direct reference. Juxtaposition is everything here. More generally, the fight is over framing. Consider Barack’s follow up comments on the scenario, reframing the event as a one that’s been ripped out of context and poorly reframed by “the media”:

And just for kicks, consider Cheney’s use of the phrase as an ethos-builder, framing it as an good-ole-Western-frontier expression — something that true, red-blooded Americans say over black coffee:

holy hyperbole!

Posted on September 5, 2008 by Kate

I just walked in on the RNC coverage in time to catch the bio of/commercial for Sarah Palin, the story of her life constructed to formally introduce her to the voters. It’s a fairly predictable glossy version of an all-American life: the high school basketball championship, making parents proud, marrying high school sweetheart, defeating the incumbent major, bucking the system in Alaskan politics. It ends: “When Alaska’s maverick joined America’s maverick, the world shook; the world trembled. And the world will soon be a better place.”

That’s awesome. That’s all I have to say about it, really. Those writers no doubt realized that this is just about the only rhetorical situation in which they could get away with it. Kudos.

Protest till you’re Red in the Face . . .

Posted on September 4, 2008 by

You shouldn’t wear white after Labor Day. Did you know that? (And did you know that its proliferation comes from class-based discrimination? In response to the burgeoning middle classes of the early 20th century, strict rules had to be made to let the nouveau-riche know what’s up.)

(Over)hearing this phrase several times in the past few days has me paying a bit more attention to clothing. Especially in protest. So in celebration of Labor Day, here’s quick smattering of how color is being used rhetorically in protest:

While I don’t think our Labor-Day-Dress-Codes seep south of the border, protesters in Mexico got all their white-wearing done just in time anyway. Just a few days ago, over a hundred thousand people marched through the streets of Mexico City, protesting a recent wave of killings and kidnappings. Combined with the silence during marching and the thousands of candles lit by protesters at night, wearing white for the expression of solidarity is effective in my opinion, if only because it draws on the centuries-old binary (well, about 2041 years old) of White = Good, Peaceful / Black = Evil, Aggressive. Binaries may be boring, but they work.

The Democratic National Convention in Denver just finished up last week. As far as protesting goes, the usual (predictable) tactics we used. However, Denver Police took no chances with the convention on their turf — the streets were swarming with futuristically outfitted officers (paid for with a 50 million dollar grant from the Federal government) . As one of my friends reports from the frontlines, “It’s the new Cool Fascismo look.”

One of the protest groups at the DNC where color plays a central role in communicating their message is CODEPINK, an all female collective that assembled in order to put pressure on the Bush administration to get out of Iraq.

This is what their website has to say about the name: “The name CODEPINK plays on the Bush Administration’s color-coded homeland security alerts — yellow, orange, red — that signal terrorist threats. While Bush’s color-coded alerts are based on fear and are used to justify violence, the CODEPINK alert is a feisty call for women and men to ‘wage peace.'”

CODEPINK draws on the carnivalesque in its tactics, with wild outfits being encouraged. Pink brings a femininity — a certain kind of it, at least — to the protests, perhaps opening doors to some by showing protests aren’t all black-clad dudes chanting angry rants. In fact, a lot of the pictures on their website show middle-aged women, all smiles. The color, it seems, expands access to protest, a gateway of sorts. An argument could be made that it changes how others view the color too, because it seeks empowerment through the quintessential “girly” color.

In the most disturbing video I’ve seen come out of the DNC protests, witness below a cop jack a CODEPINK activist in the chest, knocking her to the ground. And when you watch it, please don’t think, “This is an anomaly.” It’s not.

Also in attendance, of course, at the DNC (and now quite active at the RNC) are Black Bloc affinity groups. While comprised mostly of anarchists, I’m pretty sure they’re open to anyone who’s anti-capitalist. Black Blocs got a lot of press after their central role in shutting down hearings at the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” Anti-WTO riots. They’re also the scape-goat of many who are convinced that protesting would make great strides if only it weren’t for those (Scooby-Doo voice) “meddling kids.” Sadly, these groups are more often than not presented as simply “misguided youth” who think wearing black is cool. I’ve known even the most critical of thinkers to fall prey to this dismissal. One way to start reconceptualizing the Black Bloc in an effort to combat this reductionism, is to explain that it’s not an organized group. It’s a tactic. Which is to say, it’s rhetorical.

One website describes one aspect of the tactic thus:

In it’s essential form, each participant of a Black Bloc wears somewhat of a uniform (see the Clothing section). The idea of wearing this uniform is that if every single person in the Bloc looks relatively alike, it is hard for the police to determine which individual did what. For instance, if a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.

This makes it all sound very pragmatic, which I’m a little hesitant to accept wholesale. There’s also the undeniable attribution of “trouble” attached to black. Which in this case is quite purposeful. Wearing all black and marching in a sea of black works to put you in a certain mindset, one that perhaps steels you for the fight that’s about to come.

And I suppose that’s one of the main points of this post, even though it’s obvious: Different colors put one in different mindsets — and this is especially true when it comes to expressing solidarity with large numbers of protesters.

conventional wisdom

Posted on August 29, 2008 by

This past week, I made a conscious effort to catch the major speeches at the Democratic National Convention (including Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Barack himself).

“But why?,” I was asked last night.

Hmmmm…. because I’m a Democrat? Because I study rhetoric? Because I’m trying to decide who to vote for? No, no, no.

Really, I guess it’s because I want to be inspired. Because I want to hear motivating speeches that promise Americans the best, that tell us we deserve the best, that make me feel a part of something larger than myself… a part of a big community that shares my social, cultural, and political values and goals.

Is that, in fact, the sole (or “soul”) purpose of these conventions? Because, let’s face it: these politicans don’t tell us anything we don’t already know, they can’t possibly accomplish all they claim they will, and they never really tell us what exactly they’re going to do and how they’re going to do it.

Is it all about the use of rhetoric to INSPIRE–to MOTIVATE the American people? to stir our emotions just enough to reinstate our belief in the government and to cast our vote in November?

Well, these 6 people did that for me. They told me exactly what I wanted to hear. They made me feel exactly how I wanted to feel.

OBEY the Commander in Chief!

Posted on August 20, 2008 by

Yep. They’re everywhere.

I can’t walk down the sidewalk in Columbus without seeing a poster or sticker with Obama’s face on it. Do these look familiar?

Am I a little annoyed? Yeah. I’m annoyed. But not for the reason you might suspect. My annoyance (and deep fascination) springs not from the man depicted, but the man who designed it.

Alright, you recognized these images around Columbus (and my guess is that even for our outside-of-the-heartland readers this image isn’t unfamiliar) — but do you recognize these?

Yes? Good. But for any urban dwellers out there that haven’t (and I’ll try to say this without sounding condescending), it’s time to open your eyes when you’re out-n-about in the city. Seriously. They’re everywhere.

What is the face of Andre the Giant doing gracing cityscapes all across the globe?

The “OBEY” campaign is the brainchild of Shepherd Fairey, perhaps the second most famous street artist of all time (Banksy is hands-down the first). In the late ’80s Fairey started posting stickers with a crude drawing of Andre on it with the saying, “Andre the Giant has a Posse.” He plopped stickers wherever he went, eventually creating a stir of rumors and conspiracies. In candid interviews Fairey tones down his typical pitch about how the campaign is an “experiment in phenomenology” and admits that he just thought it was funny confusing people into thinking random and fantastical thoughts about what such a sticker could possibly mean. How deep.

Fascinated with how messages embedded in the cityscape communicated differently, Fairey expanded his reach, bombing stickers and wheatpasted images across the US. Soon ascending the short ladder of hipness, Fairey was able to support himself financially, becoming a full time street artist. He now operates an extremely successful brand. OBEY now sells clothing, limited edition prints, and books.

You may have surmised by my tone that I find Fairey a less than compelling figure. It’s true. Without being overly bitchy about it, I think he’s a shallow hack and capitalist pig.

And this isn’t just a case of “I used to like that band before they got famous.”

Street art — stenciling, wheatpasting, and some varieties of tagging — carries with it certain philosophies (that I’ll do my best to explore in a follow-up post) that Fairey has little respect for; but more generally, Fairey has little respect for originality, a key component of street art. He’s a flagrant, unapologetic plagiarist masquerading under a revolutionary veneer. Gross.

Mark Vallen, an astute art critic who has done the research to expose Fairey’s careerism, puts it eloquently: “When a will to plagiarize and a love for self-promotion are the only requirements necessary for becoming an artist, then clearly the arts are in deep trouble.”

Here are just a few clipped shots from Vallen’s site, which is linked to above:

But I want to be careful here, since the use of art in resistance is a tricky area. Appropriation, replication without granted permission, subversion through irony, and a deep distrust of all authority are all common features in street art. But when you make your pay by stealing other people’s aesthetics and allowing it to pass as original stuff, you’re nothing but a banal jerk.

Oh my. Now that I’ve ranted for so long I’m out of breath to talk about the Obama image as rhetorical situation. But a few thoughts before I go slam a cup of decaf:

* When subculture aesthetics and practices mix with political propaganda (they’re often close cousins in many regards), the results can be mixed. I’m wondering how the practice of illegally “tagging” and “bombing” posters on walls and stickers on lampposts gives the campaign a subversive “a revolution is happening!” feel to it. There is a pervasive irony here, right? I mean, blatant dismissal of city law for a “higher purpose” isn’t ironic when that higher purpose is ultimately fighting the fundamental adherence to city law. But what about when it’s for someone who’s job it is to maintain that fundamental order? I’m polarizing camps here, making the question slightly misleading by being reductive. Nevertheless, subversive overtones (undertones?) can really help a political campaign in building momentum.

* The image itself deserves a solid rhetorical analysis of visual composition. It departs significantly from your standard American campaign headshot for a poster. The simplicity of it all, combined with the steely gaze of Barack can’t help but make me think of this other leader — I think his name was Chairman Mao. Or am I thinking of Lenny?

Seriously, doesn’t this poster have an aesthetic aura to it that gestures towards revolutionary leaders of the East?

(thanks to garlinggauge.com for pulling these shots together)

* Hillary caught on a little too late to the power of revolutionary propaganda, the current cultural cache of retro, and the potential of hipster politics. Did any of you see this poster, released by the Clinton campaign near its death knell?

HOLY COMRADE CLINTON!!!

Anyone out there up for another quick game of juxtaposition? This hopefully will leave us on a good jumping off point for a rowdy Harlot discussion . . .

Harlot

A revealing look at the arts of persuasion

Category Archives: Law & Politics