I’ve recently been pushing through the book The Persuaders, by James Garvey, a philosopher in the UK. I’ve been meaning to write about his Chapter 1, where he briefly overviews the rational amusements of London back in the 18th century (nyah, not going to explain that one just yet), but that fascinating bit will have to wait, as I’ve just completed the far more relevant Chapter 5, “Lost For Words,” wherein he discusses today’s political rhetoric.
If you’ve been wondering at the emptiness of political speeches, at the disconnect between interview questions and interview answers, this may be the chapter for you. He begins with the Kerry loss to Bush in 2004, the Democratic (and world-wide) shock and anguish at their defeat. He traces it to the messaging efforts of Frank Luntz, a name I’ve encountered a few times during the 2016 campaign as a pollster astonished by the behavior of Trump voters. Luntz works extensively in the proper framing of the messages to be used by Republican candidates. Garvey connects this to the two thinking systems we humans use (from a previous chapter, Systems 1 (fast, a-rational) and 2 (slow, rational)). He also briefly surveys the work of George Lakoff, a Democratic resource who works on similar issues. He covers the company Crowds On Demand, a delightful name for a deceitful company, and how they supply people simply to respond positively to a speech. He meditates on how certain words and phrases become the mantra of politicos, as if they’re magic incantations.
But this is the most interesting, because it’s a personal story rather than the drier facts he’s been explaining – and forms a connection from those facts to personal experience. From pp 132-133:
Framing is of course just a part of the thinking behind modern political messaging. There’s much more to understanding what’s going on when we hear a politician speak. But even with this limited grip on political language, I now find myself turned off by political speeches. I don’t want to hear and be affected by them. Sometimes I look away and hum to myself when a politician appears on television to respond to the news of the day. I know that I can’t keep this head-in-the-sand solution going for very long, and I know it’s slightly batty, but it’s less painful than the alternative, which is listening to the soundbites and playing political buzzword bingo. The words now leap out at me, and I can’t hear anything other than a communications specialist stressing the repetition of the words ‘freedom’, … [typos mine – HW]
Yes, a communications specialist, permitting anyone who can learn a bunch of phrases and not dribble on themselves at barbecues to become a Representative. To me, the work of the communication specialist is not just another job, but a real step in the dissolution of the Republic, because it’s an enabler of the second and third class personality to come into a leadership position.
A few weeks ago, I recall reading somewhere that a GOP aide had said, paraphrasing, Gosh, we don’t know how to govern! And this rather explains it, doesn’t it? Luntz and his fellows have removed the responsibility of effective communication, of thinking on one’s feet, of being rational, of being smart, from the backs of GOP candidates, and now we’re seeing the results. Representative Gohmert (TX) is, of course, legendary for being an idiot, but just in the last day or two, I read how Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA) asked if Mars had ever had a civilization.
This all reinforces my worry that the Democrats may go tromping down the same road. After all, the nation is in desperate straits at the moment. Right?
No. Victory at any cost could cost us the Republic; it will almost certainly cost us our first-rank status.
Fortunately, given the approval ratings for Trump and the GOP, the general population of the United States may be figuring this out. I think, though, the media should take this further, by explicitly reprimanding and disallowing the use of framing and messaging by political candidates. A question is asked, then it should be clearly answered – and the candidate will be warned that any framing and messaging which disrupts the interview will end up on the cutting room floor.
Even better might be the warning that if an entire interview must be discarded due to excessive messaging, then a front page story will be run that simply says the candidate engaged in a deceitful interview and the media refuses to run it.
Extreme? Perhaps. But as a Nation we should demand honest and forthright answers to questions – not messaging that means nothing in response to the relevant questions.
I’ve only read about half of The Persuaders, but I think I can say it’s Recommended to readers across the spectrum. In Chapter 5, for conservatives bewildered by the incompetence of their elected representatives, this may be an eye opener; for the lefty, they may find an explanation, if not a solution, for the losses at the ballot box. And while Garvey doesn’t deliver a lot of hope for the future, I’m hoping the general poll numbers both here and in the UK (where the Tories took it shockingly on the nose in the last election) indicate an electorate that’s wising up to the evil of the communication specialist.
