Images and Issues  10/28/2006
Category:  Bi-Partisan

“I am competent and trustworthy; from me, you’ll get more (good) and less
(bad).”

IMAGES & ISSUES
by Hugh Rank

When college students are asked what they don’t like about campaign ads, the
most common responses are: “They’re so negative,”“They’re all lies”; “They
all say the same thing.”

Much is being written about these first two issues (google: negative ads,
deception), but here’s a few useful words about that third complaint (“They
all say the same thing.”), the repetition of similarities.

Yes, election candidates all say the say thing. They have to. Every recurring
human situation has a limited set of options and responses, and a limited
thesaurus of words.

Underneath all of the bragging and mudslinging, underneath all of the surface
details the basic superstructure of all the claims and charges in an election
campaign, can be boiled down into one core sentence:

Variations, of course, exist in degree, proportion, emphasis, and synonyms
(both words, and nonverbals). These can be stated directly or suggested
indirectly, made in broad generalizations or specific details.

Basically, however, the superstructure underneath all campaign rhetoric can
be summarized in this one core sentence of claims: "I am competent and
trustworthy; from me, you'll get more (good) and less (bad)."

This core statement has three claims about the projected image of the virtues
of the speaker. The two obvious ones are "competent" and "trustworthy." The
hidden claim here is that of being “on your side”-- a "benefactor" -- a
benefit-giver, implied in the phrase: "From me, you'll get...."

These three claims are what Aristotle, in his “Rhetoric” some 2,500 years
ago, called the ethos; or, in modern terms, the desirable projected "image"
of the speaker as being competent, trustworthy, and benevolent. Or, as some
translators phrase it, as having good sense, good character, and good will.

The most common variation is in political attacks, when this sentence is
reversed, stated negatively in the charges: "My opponent is incompetent and
untrustworthy; from him, you'll get more (bad) and less (good.)"

The last part of the core sentence -- more (good) and less (bad) -- relates
to claims or charges about any issues involved: what kind (e.g security,
healthcare, taxes) and what degree (e.g. stronger security, better
healthcare, lower taxes, less waste).

As ordinary citizens, you and I will never have access to insider
information, nor have the time or ability to deal with all of the
complexities of a political campaign.

Awareness of some basic patterns of persuasion has limited value: it doesn't
tell us which side is "right," what charges are "true," what supporting
evidence is reliable, or what to do.

But, such pattern analysis does help us to begin some basic sorting out -- in
a detached and systematic way -- of some very complex emotional arguments: to
identify the examples, to recognize past history, and to define the key
issues

Some aspects are easy to recognize: competency and trustworthiness are often
stressed by past leadership roles (e.g. experienced as Governor, Senator,
General).

Benevolence -- being “on your side” -- often has rich politicians playing the
“plain folks”role of an aw-shucks regular guy,

Some situations are more complex. For example, Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of
the House, was caught in the horns of a dilemma about the Foley “page”
scandal because, when he claimed he didn’t know about it, he could be
criticized for being incompetent (culpable ignorance), but any prior
knowledge would be worse, as it could indicate a political cover-up ( being
neither trustworthy, nor “on our side.)

As a simple and practical, useful and easy, mnenomic device to focus on the
very common patterns of all election rhetoric, it won’t hurt you to memorize
this core sentence and look for it as the superstructure underneath the
surface:

“I am competent and trustworthy, from me you’ll get (more) good and less
(bad).”


-------------------------

Hugh Rank, Professor Emeritus, has a website “Persuasion Analysis” on which
he has many simple teaching aids to help analyze commercial and political
persuasion.



Hugh Rank
109 West Mason St. #2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 882-2226
hughrank@verizon.net

Persuasion Analysis
http://webserve.govst.edu/pa

For more Information related to this article, visit http://webserve.govst.edu/pa

Contributing Editor: Hugh Rank  [hughrank@verizon.net]