Now, Gentle Readers, you all know that I am not averse to profanity. Far from it. I have a tremendous respect for profanity, and for the poetics of profanity. I even, on occasion, use some myself. So I don’t think that my reaction to the story of The Emperor's New Clothes and the Fucking Blogger is entirely motivated by prunes and prism. But really, did any of you have the reaction I did, which is that it was an effective satire on itself? I mean, if you wanted to make the point that Thersites and his fellows have no clue about political rhetoric, wouldn’t you tell a story about how their profane hostility prevented them from persuading the crowd that the Emporer had no clothes even while the Emperor was standing in front of them buck naked? I mean, if his idea of moral suasion is “what the FUCK is wrong with you fuckers?”, it’s not really a surprise that he’s not winning any elections, now, is it?
That said, I have the greatest sympathy for Thersites and for anyone who is reduced to asking WTFMFWTFAYT? I get that. And I get that, on a strictly logical basis, profanity is scarcely an indicator of an argument’s inferiority. Or superiority, for that matter. Also, I suppose, there’s an argument to be made that the old f-bomb should be retired as profanity, because everybody uses it these days, and that the restriction against it no longer serves the purpose of making it special and transgressive, and so on. But come on, boys and girls, if you call somebody a fucker, the fucker are likely to take offense, and then the fucker may not weigh your arguments very carefully. Furthermore, these little words still are a marker of Who You Are, and Who You Are is still one of the most important and powerful parts of persuasion.
Look, when Thomas Jefferson went to the trouble of writing the Declaration of Independence, do you think he didn’t want to point out that not only was the Emperor’s dick hanging out, but that the Emperor had a distressing tendency to spend his days with his bare ass on a piano bench playing an imaginary Hammond B-3? In fact, old TJ took great care in establishing himself as a reasonable, educated, calm man, much like his reader (who was, presumably, pleased to find himself reasonable, educated and calm, much more so, anyway, than to find himself a dumbfuck), who was compelled, by the great sweep of history, to present the case against the Emperor, detailed below, after the list of his qualifications to present it. I’m not saying we each to be Thomas Jefferson, I’m just saying that if we want to be persuasive, we need to learn how persuasion works, and use that knowledge, rather than relying entirely on being right.
I mean, it’s nice to be right. Thersites is right. Being right isn’t enough. You don’t hold all your opinions just because they are all right. Oh, I’m sure they are all right, but that wasn’t enough. Rhetoric is about that extra stuff, the stuff that brings being right up to the level of winning. And if you hold that in contempt, then you don’t really get to whinge about the village fuckheads and how they won’t listen to you. Or, rather, you do get to whinge about them, but you still have to live under the government they elect.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
I think you’re (unsurprisingly) exactly right about the importance of appealing to the intended audience rather than treating them as hostile. And really, very few people are going to react positively to be called fuckheads.
But there’s far more to appealing to your audience than avoiding outright hostility. You have to figure out what your audience will actually find appealing. Personally, I like being treated as reasonable, educated, and calm. But if the question is specifically how to make left-of-fascist policies appeal to the majority of voters, I think too many national Democratic politicians have tried treating their intended audience as reasonable, educated, and calm. Those of us who like being treated that way are not a large enough portion of the electorate, and most of us are going to vote Democratic anyway. Many voters prefer the way Fox News treats them — ill-informed, distractable, spiteful, and paranoid. (A nicer way to say that is overwhelmed with work and responsibilities, concerned about the future for their children, and concerned about their safety.) Those voters don’t want to understand every issue, they don’t want to worry about every detail of governance, they just want some simple ideas to latch onto so that they don’t have to feel so alone in this chaotic world. So much for reasonable (in the sense of based on reason) and educated. And those voters certainly don’t want to be calm — they have spent the last five years getting hooked on the adrenaline rush of terrorism, war, and security theater. They may want to be reassured, but they don’t want to be calm because that calm seems far too alien, irrational, and unjustified in the current media climate.
I don’t want our electorate to be like that. It drives out those with calm voices who I want in office, lowers the level of public discourse, and demeans the standards of citizenship. But I’m willing to hope for a raising of the bar later. In the meantime, how do we rhetorically appeal to a sufficiently large section of the electorate?
Well, and of course TJ’s reasonable, educated and calm is not going to be the right approach in all circumstances. It depends on the audience, of course, and on what direction you are trying to lead them in. Democrats (and their allies) have been trying a variety of approaches. There’s I, like you, am fed up with the way incompetents and crooks (like them) are rewarded, and honest, independent people (like us) are punished. There’s I, like you, am a grieving parent or friend of a soldier, sent to die for nothing a million miles from home. There’s I, like you, am an essentially kind-hearted but hard-headed patriot, who wants to help out our fellow countrymen who have been screwed by The System.
Some of that works, and some of it doesn’t. And some of it works for some things and not for others. And, unfortunately, I think the other side has had the better lines: I, like you, am a regular guy, whose common sense is worth more than all the so-called experts put together, and I, like you, am a virtuous victim of inequities and iniquities, and I, like you, am a stalwart defender of civilization against barbarism. And, I’m afraid, they have I, like you, am a white Christian who is under attack by black lesbian abortionists.
Ultimately, for Democrats or even democrats to win in the rhetorical arena, we have to create an environment where I, like you, think that what makes the world interesting and fun is that people are different one to another is persuasive.
Thanks,
-V.