Rhetoric: Aristotle, RBG, and the art of persuasion

Aristotle (384- 322 B.C.E.)

​

Rhetoric was long a required course at Fordham College as at other colleges that followed the classical education model. The class centered - back in the day - on Aristotle's classic  Rhetoric.  It is a highly accessible treatise well worth reading.  The Philosopher, as Aquinas called him, emphasizes the  discipline of facts and the need to look at both sides of a question:

[W]e must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.

Though  we don't offer a course titled Rhetoric  we do try to teach mastery of the art  by example and through the many contemporary efforts on which we draw in classes .  In my first year of law school my civil procedure teacher exemplified the virtues Aristotle extolled which she has followed throughout her long career.  In today's Times in an op-ed titled Justice Ginsburg's Cautious Radicalism Irin Carmon (co-author of Notorious RBG) presents then Professor, now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's approach:

Her vision for the world is transformative, but instead of broad sweeps, she has urged slow, incremental steps to that change. Rather than capitulation, this is about playing a long game. These principles sustained her through decades of experiencing discrimination, and formed her legal strategy. “She insisted that we attempt to develop the law one step at a time,” a fellow A.C.L.U. lawyer, Kathleen Peratis, testified at Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings in 1993. “ ‘Present the court with the next logical step,’ she urged us, and then the next and then the next. ‘Don’t ask them to go too far too fast, or you’ll lose what you might have won.’ She often said, ‘It’s not time for that case.’ We usually followed her advice, and when we didn’t, we invariably lost.”

Perhaps the most commented upon contemporary contrast to Ginsburg has been the rhetoric of her fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Southwestern Law School Professor Michael Frost focused on his dissent from Ginsburg's majority opinion in the VMI case which struck the male only admissions policy of the state military college.  Frost, in his 2002 article Justice Scalia's Greco Roman Rhetoric   warned that Scalia ignored Aristotle's principles and undercut his own effectiveness.  Some have even warned that he reserves his harshest rhetoric for female adversaries.   

 The lawyer who recognizes and presents the nuance of argument is helpful to and appreciated by judges, as the late Third Circuit Judge Ruggero Aldisert wrote, accepting the Golden Pen Award of the Legal Writing Institute:

[L]egal writing is not designed to describe something like a journalist, to report what is true or false. It is not what Austin describes as “to constate” or to give information on an action that has taken place. Instead it is designed to convince, to deter, or to persuade. And all this means is to perform, and thus produce future action.When you are a judge, or are a law clerk writing for a judge,every document you write is a “performative utterance.” It is writing that concludes with a definite performance, such as “Motion denied” or “Judgment for plaintiff” or “Affirmed” or “Reversed.” Thus, when I say that as a judge I am indebted to you, it is because to the extent you produce lawyers with better writing skills, the better we judges can properly understand the nuances of arguments presented. And the higher degree of understanding we acquire, the higher a quality of fairness and justice ensues."

In sum I would say - Preach not to the choir but to those beyond the walls.  - gwc

"They deserve a vote" - the President's filibuster busting plea for Newtown families

The President's weekly radio address (a wonderful anachronism) was delivered this week  by Francine Wheeler, whose six year old son was murdered in his classroom at Sandy Hook School, Newtown, Connecticut. "They deserve a vote" is the President's brilliant rhetorical device that has broken through the years of Republican stonewalling. Their obstructionism has steamrolled the "lamestream media" which has largely accepted as  normal that it "takes 60 vote to pass the Senate".Andrew Sprung's at ex post factoid today is worth reading in full - and worth following the links back to the unveiling of the device in the State of the Union Address in February. Here is his concluding paragraph:

The "they deserve a vote" peroration to Obama's State of the Union address this year was a brilliant rhetorical stroke (and a powerful riff) not just because it was invoked in the name of those who had lost loved ones to gun violence, but because it can serve as a readily-grasped battle cry and antidote to four and a quarter years of relentless, bad-faith obstruction.  It can be raised each time major legislation and major appointments to the bench and federal agencies are blocked.  Filibuster can really only be justified selectively, in response to a palpably extreme appointment or legislation that represents a radical departure (yes, it might have been justifiable if Republicans had the votes against the ACA).  Most of the time, "they deserve a vote" is unanswerable. The trick is making the public recognize what's going on.

Obama's Second Inaugural: Liberty and Security

President Obama's overarching themes in his second inaugural were expanding liberty, and reconciling liberty and security. James Fallows, a former presidential speechwriter, highlights two powerful allusions in President Obama's Second Inaugural Address - the "lash and sword" and "Seneca, Selma, and Stonewall" which develop the theme of expanding liberty.   Fallows focuses on the power of Obama's evocation of the history of slavery and the civil war.  The war re-founded the country, unifying it by force - compelling the south to accept the revolutionized terms of union - forbidding slavery, demanding equal protection for all, and embedding the right to vote.  For 100 years after the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments we nonetheless tolerated legal racial discrimination and the suppression of African-Americans right to vote.  It is a defect in the prevailing dialog about the Constitution that "originalism" - the dominant exegesis - considers the "founders"  to be those of the 18th century.  In my view Abraham Lincoln, the "Radical Republicans", and Ulysses Grant belong in the pantheon.

The opening section is my favorite, drawing as it does on Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.For more than two hundred years, we have.Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Remarks by the President at the Funeral Service for Senator Daniel Ken Inouye | The White House

President Obama's eulogy for Senator Ken Daniel Inouye was remarkable for its personal character.  He tells of the influence Sen. Inouye had on him as a young boy.  raveling on "the mainland" with his mother, stayiing in motels, his mother was glued to the Watergate hearings.  Sen. Inouye played a prominent role and he impressed the young Obama.  - GWC
Remarks by the President at the Funeral Service for Senator Daniel Ken Inouye | The White House:

I think it's fair to say that Danny Inouye was perhaps my earliest political inspiration.  And then, for me to have the privilege of serving with him, to be elected to the United States Senate and arrive, and one of my first visits is to go to his office, and for him to greet me as a colleague, and treat me with the same respect that he treated everybody he met, and to sit me down and give me advice about how the Senate worked and then regale me with some stories about wartime and his recovery -- stories full of humor, never bitterness, never boastfulness,  just matter-of-fact -- some of them I must admit a little off-color.  I couldn’t probably repeat them in the cathedral.  (Laughter.)  There’s a side of Danny that -- well.
Danny once told his son his service to this country had been for the children, or all the sons and daughters who deserved to grow up in a nation that never questioned their patriotism.  This is my country, he said.  Many of us have fought hard for the right to say that.  And, obviously, Rick Shinseki described what it meant for Japanese Americans, but my point is, is that when he referred to our sons and daughters he wasn’t just talking about Japanese Americans.  He was talking about all of us.  He was talking about those who serve today who might have been excluded in the past.  He’s talking about me.
And that’s who Danny was.  For him, freedom and dignity were not abstractions.  They were values that he had bled for, ideas he had sacrificed for, rights he understood as only someone can who has had them threatened, had them taken away.
The valor that earned him our nation’s highest military decoration -- a story so incredible that when you actually read the accounts, you think this -- you couldn’t make this up.  It’s like out of an action movie.  That valor was so rooted in a deep and abiding love of this country.  And he believed, as we say in Hawaii that we’re a single ‘ohana -- that we're one family.  And he devoted his life to making that family strong.

'via Blog this'

Daniel Inouye, 1924-2012 | TPM Editors Blog

Daniel Inouye, 1924-2012 | TPM Editors Blog: A winner of the Congressional medal of Honor. (Read about that at TPM above). The 1987 Iran Contra scandal  hearings were a defining moment in deflating the Reagan myth, exposing a bizarre and lawless operation run from the White House to evade Congressional prohibition of funding for the right wing Nicaraguan guerillas lionized on the right.   I remember when Inouye  stood up to the super-patriot tough guy Col. Oliver North, a key White House operative.  The Senator closed the proceedings, like Mack the Knife he left not a trace of red, as he eviscerated the right wing icon of the moment.   Inouye's closing statement is masterful ironic denunciation.  He began with praise and then proceeded to express his deep disappointment that this "new American hero" had violated his oath "a Cadet does not lie cheat or steal". - GWC
Inouye begins his closing statement.

Chairman INOUYE: I believe during the past week, we have participated in creating and developing, very likely, a new American hero. Like you, who as one has felt the burning sting of bullet and shrapnel and heard the unforgettable and frightening sounds of incoming shells, I salute you, sir, as a fellow combat man. And the rows of ribbons that you have on your chest will forever remind us of your courageous service and your willingness—your patriotic willingness to risk your life and your limb. I am certain the life and burdens of a hero will be difficult and heavy, and so, with all sincerity, I wish you well as you begin your journey into a new life.
However, as an interested observer, and as one who has participated in the making of this new American hero, I found certain aspects of your testimony to be most troubling.

The full text and video are HERE.

Ken Burns interviewed Senator Inouye about the war and the japanese internment for his 2007 movie The War.

  'via Blog this'

The defining moment: Obama v. Romney

Like others I feared that President Obama had stepped on the real third rail of American politics:  getting your ass kicked...and staying on the floor.  As one deflated reader observed on the TPM editors blog about the President after the first debate "Obama can’t handle confrontation. He wilted at Romney’s aggressive approach. It totally threw him off his game and he never rebounded in any effective way."  So Obama had to get up off the floor, like Wiley Coyote after running into a stone wall and do some butt whupping himself.  There really was a defining moment.  When your adversary says "please proceed", and then "get the transcript" you should - lest you find you are having one of those Wiley Coyote moments like that below when things don't work out as expected.

Obama's peroration: the 47%

Rhetoricians - students of the persuasive word - will use President Obama's closing statement.  It was his good fortune that Candy Crowley selected as the last - and surprising question - a voter who asked how the candidate would  correct any mis-impression that people may have of him.  Romney said he was caring - caring about 100% of the American people.  It came in slow and low over the plate.  And Obama crushed it to straight-away center:

Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That's not what I believe.
I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy is grown. That's how we built the world's greatest middle class.
And — and that is part of what's at stake in this election. There's a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith.
But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives, veterans who've sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income.
And I want to fight for them. That's what I've been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.

Dismantling Romney - how to do it - Bill Clinton shows us again

Obama - the peroration litany

This video captures the peroration of President Obama's stump speech.   We see that he uses the litany rather than the Black churchman's call and response.

Is it art or propaganda? - Jonathan Turley

Propaganda 102 – Holly Would and the Power of Images « JONATHAN TURLEY:
I don't understand the "either or", as in "Is it propaganda or art?  In my view art is a tool.  Some has a political purpose, some not.

The Pleasures and Perils of the Passive - NYTimes.com

The Pleasures and Perils of the Passive - NYTimes.com:
by Constance Hale

 "The word passive gets a bad rap. We throw it around to vent about friends who can’t stand up for themselves, and we combine it with aggressive to describe those who express anger indirectly rather than just blurting it out. When it comes to writing, many of us are haunted by this word. Maybe a high school teacher forbade “passive constructions.” Or we recall authorities like Strunk and White, who famously told us to “use the active voice.”
There is certainly some merit to this rule of thumb; some of the worst writing around suffers from inert verbs and the unintended use of the passive voice. Yet the passive voice remains an important arrow in the rhetorical quiver. After all, it exists for a reason"

'via Blog this'

Obama's AIPAC speech – the full text | guardian.co.uk

 

President Obama made an impressive case today at AIPAC.  He defended American policy toward Israel and Palestinian statehood more effectively than I have ever heard an American president do.  I say this as someone who believes that we suffer from inability to say straight that there is a deep flaw in Israeli democracy - the 45 year occupation of the west bank. 


In an ideal world Jews and Palestinians would have a unified state with equal rights for all, and a firm commitment to mutual respect.  But neither people seems able to do what Tony Judt believed to be the only wise course.  Side by side is the best we  can achieve now, as Obama said today, linking the Israelis, Americans and Palestinians through a common belief in self-determination.


And he stood up to the hawks today, describing as "loose talk" the drumbeat for war with Iran by the Israeli lobby, the Republican presidential candidates, and "serious" people.   - GWC

Obama's Aipac speech –the full text | World news | guardian.co.uk: Barack Obama, March 4, 2012 - Address to American Israel Political Action Committee.

"Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

Moving forward, I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues, the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel's security, America's security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built. Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly; carry a big stick. And as we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve and that our coordination with Israel will continue."'via Blog this'

Prayer in high places

It is rare that public prayer or talk of prayer is anything other than awkward, embarrassing, or infuriating.  When politicians start praying it really gets creepy - because it seems self-commendatory rather than genuinely grateful.  But Barack Obama has managed what I did not think possible: to give an address at the National Prayer Breakfast that is both inspiring and humble - while being serious about policy.  Below is the closing - but read the whole thing.

Mark read a letter from Billy Graham, and it took me back to one of the great honors of my life, which was visiting Reverend Graham at his mountaintop retreat in North Carolina, when I was on vacation with my family at a hotel not far away.
And I can still remember winding up the path up a mountain to his home. Ninety-one years old at the time, facing various health challenges, he welcomed me as he would welcome a family member or a close friend. This man who had prayed great prayers that inspired a nation, this man who seemed larger than life, greeted me and was as kind and as gentle as could be.

And we had a wonderful conversation. Before I left, Reverend Graham started praying for me, as he had prayed for so many Presidents before me. And when he finished praying, I felt the urge to pray for him. I didn’t really know what to say. What do you pray for when it comes to the man who has prayed for so many? But like that verse in Romans, the Holy Spirit interceded when I didn’t know quite what to say.

And so I prayed -- briefly, but I prayed from the heart. I don’t have the intellectual capacity or the lung capacity of some of my great preacher friends here that have prayed for a long time. (Laughter.) But I prayed. And we ended with an embrace and a warm goodbye.
And I thought about that moment all the way down the mountain, and I’ve thought about it in the many days since. Because I thought about my own spiritual journey –- growing up in a household that wasn’t particularly religious; going through my own period of doubt and confusion; finding Christ when I wasn’t even looking for him so many years ago; possessing so many shortcomings that have been overcome by the simple grace of God. And the fact that I would ever be on top of a mountain, saying a prayer for Billy Graham –- a man whose faith had changed the world and that had sustained him through triumphs and tragedies, and movements and milestones –- that simple fact humbled me to my core.

I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment -- asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong. I know that He will guide us. He always has, and He always will. And I pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

 

Annotated State of the Union Speech - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

Obama's hand - editing a draft.

Don't they know how to find the double-space key at the White House?

James Fallows is an excellent experienced analyst of Presidential rhetoric. He was a speech-writer for Jimmy Carter, a much less satisfying job than writing for Barack Obama who actually closely edits his own speeches even when he doesn't write the draft himself. DON'T read the excerpt below. Click on the link. Then you will find that when you put the cursor over an underlined phrase Fallows' comments pop up. - GWC 

Annotated State of the Union Speech - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic:

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

State of the Union Address

"An America Built to Last"

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery -

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute ^[1]to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought—and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes ^[2]has made the United States safer and more respected around the world^[3]. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden^[4] is not a threat to this country^[5]. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America's Armed Forces.^[6] At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition^[7]. They don't obsess over their differences.^[8] They focus on the mission at hand. They work together^[9].

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example^[10]. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last,^[11]where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.
 p.s. Fallows is not the only one making notes; Here is the National Academies Press version with links to resources about the problems of which the President spoke.

'via Blog this'Annotated State of the Union Speech - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic:

'via Blog this'

Tax equity - Obama's State of the Union theme

"We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right."

Barack Obama, State of the Union address, January 24, 2012

Was Obama's use of the phrase
`built to last' a dog whistle to Deadheads?

I think that gets it right. Like other professional families we pay taxes at twice Mitt Romney's 13.9%. To say that he should pay what we pay is not envy. It is asking that those who can pay a decent share.

President Obama: "In America, We Are Greater Together" | The White House

In the most important economic speech of his presidency, Barack Obama went to Osawatomie Kansas to channel Teddy Roosevelt's  speech a century ago.  For the first time, as Robert Reich observed, a President addressed directly both the political ideology and the structural economic challenges that threaten America's favorite self-image: land of opportunity.  In one of the highlights of a speech (HERE is the transcript) that should be read, the President said:

"But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
Well, I’m here to say they are wrong." VIDEO of this highlight

President Obama: "In America, We Are Greater Together" | The White House:

'via Blog this'

The President's Speech: The American Jobs Act

President Obama got a lot right tonight.  Including the name of the bill - the American Jobs Act.

The full text is HERE.  Below is a key quote - one that should be his theme all the way through to November 2012  After that is the enhanced version of the speech - with charts - from the White House.
We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

Ask yourselves - where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather  had the opportunity to go to school because of the GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn't had that chance?

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?
No single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. Members of Congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities.

The Atlantic Accent

At some point this kind of formal American diction gave way to more colloquial standard diction. But there is something lost when we give up the formal phrasing heard here.h/t James Fallows

xpostfactoid: A lover of fairy tales casts Obama as villain-in-chief

Andrew Sprung refutes David Westen's attack on Obama.

xpostfactoid: A lover of fairy tales casts Obama as villain-in-chief

Westen's false narrative

Obama can't tell a good story?  Hasn't told a good story? That's what Drew Westen - a psychologist - says in a big Times essay called What Happened to Obama?  I wish it were so simple.    Westen isn't even right about Obama's rhetoric.  HERE is his big debt and deficit speech defending Medicare, etc.   And Here's Jonathan Bernstein's take. - GWC

Everyone is talking about Drew Westen's mega-article in the New York Times yesterday, which takes Barack Obama to task for not being a good storyteller. As I'm sure regular readers will expect, I think it's bunk. I didn't want to deal with it over the weekend, however, and so others beat me to the main points, and made them better than I would. #1. Westen misunderstands the presidency, and even misunderstands the power of rhetoric within the presidency; John Sides explains. #2. Westen isn't even right about the basic facts; Andrew Sprung, who follows Obama's rhetoric more carefully than anyone else I know of, has no difficulty finding several examples of Obama saying exactly what Westen wants Obama to say. And a long time ago, Brendan Nyhan was excellent on Westen in general.

But if that's not enough, I'll add a bit....