Mythmakers, Ghostwriters, & the Bully Pulpit by Julie Humphress

What matters most in politics is personality. It's not issues; it's not image. ... My job as a pollster is to understand what really matters. Those levers of importance -- sometimes they're called levers; sometimes they're called triggers. What causes people to buy a product? What causes someone to pull a lever and get them to vote? I need to know the specifics of that. And in politics, more often than not, it's about the personality and the character of the individual rather than where they stand, and that's exactly the opposite of what your viewers will think.-Frank Luntz

Frank Lutz is a corporate and political consultant and pollster who has worked most recently with the FOX News Channel running focus groups after presidential debates. Luntz's specialty is "testing language and "finding words" that will help his clients sell their product or "turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. What does any of this have to do with the issues? Nothing. In America, we're all just consumers in the eyes of politicians. And sadly, that's what works to win presidencies.

Words such as "persuade", "manipulate" and "influence" have in common that each conveys (with differing degrees of positive and negative feeling) the sense that one person is affecting another person, either openly or covertly. Most forms of intervention have the potential to influence; it is inherent in any method by which people interact and influence each other.

For example, Newt Gingrich worked with Republican leaders and "conservatives" in the media to frame the word "liberal" as something akin to "traitor," an effort that ultimately led to his infamous "secret" memo to GOP leaders titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." "Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Apply these [words] to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party:"

Decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... 'compassion' is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant... stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage.

On the other hand, Newt suggested that Republicans should also "memorize as many as possible" of the following "Positive Governing Words" to apply to any reference to Republicans or GOP efforts:

Share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... crusade... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide... liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom... peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate.

The result a decade of politicians and talk show hosts memorizing and parroting Newt's word list is that, in much of the public's mind, morality and patriotism are associated with right while the left are thought of in the terms described above.

This is just an example, this technique is also employed against "the right", and even those within the same party in disagreement. Source: FAIR Link

IN THE MEDIA

Political persuasion is harder to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see and hear bits and pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news- incomplete, not sequential, and usually edited by others. And as recievers, we are also biased: everyone comes with their own set of attitudes and ideas, emotions and opinions.

A good analysis of political language is a complex, rational activity. As such, it's in sharp contrast to emotional rantings by demagogues- including talk-show commentators, with their partisan views, attacks, sneers slurs, and slogans.

A good reasoned analysis is also in contrast to the little sound bites of TV news which are the source of most people's information and opinions.

As citizens, we are better served during the heat of an ongoing election campaign by skilled journalists and other writers who are well informed (about politics, history, language, and media techniques), who seek to present a fair assessment.

POLITICAL CANDIDATES

Candidates don't start from zero, thinking up ideas by themselves. They hire PR (public relations) companies with experienced people using the same kind of techniques as advertising agencies do for commercial products.

During the election campaign of 1935, the city of Allentown, Pennsylvania, was divided for experimental purposes. What residents did not know was that they were part of an experiment in political persuasion- seperated into three types of wards:

(1) an "emotional" area in which all the resident adults received leaflets written in vigorous advertising style urging the support of the Socialist ticket.

(2) a "rational" region, in which a more academic type of persuasion was used.

(3) a control district where nothing was distributed.

The increase in the minority party vote was greatest in the emotional wards, next largest in the rational wards, and lowest in the control wards.

The researchers looked at how many voters in the two sections they could persuade to vote for the Socialist Party, rather than the Republicans or Democrats. (The Socialist Party was chosen because it had no chance of winning the elections.)

What the researchers wanted to study was the contrast between rational and emotional appeals in political persuasion. The questionnaire's appeal was rational. It asked people who wanted a more egalitarian society to vote their views on policy matters. The letter's appeal was emotional: "We beg you in the name of those early memories and spring-time hopes to support the Socialist ticket in the coming elections!" it said. When the election was over, the Socialist vote increased by 35 percent over the previous election in the sections of the city that received the rational appeal. In the sections that received the emotional appeal, the Socialist vote increased by 50 percent.

Given the enormous proliferation of policy questions today, surfing the emotional wave nowadays may be even more important than it was in 1935. George E. Marcus, president of the International Society of Political Psychology, said modern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don't have much effect. Voters, he explained, need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention.

The research is of importance to politicians for obvious reasons -- and partly explains the enduring attraction of negative advertising -- but it is also important to voters, because it suggests that the reason candidates seem appealing often has little to do with their ideas. Political campaigns are won and lost at a more emotional and subtle level.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1936 Apr Vol 31(1) 99-114

THE PRESIDENT

Teddy Roosevelt (US President 1901-09) famously coined the term "bully pulpit"- referring to the White House, the presidency, as a great platform or a great place to advocate and to persuade. (At that time, the word "bully" meant excellent, superb, or great.) When TR said this, it was literally true: an audience had to be near the platform, within actual hearing distance of the spoken voice. Since then, the bully pulpit has been extended by new inventions- loudspeakers, radio, TV, internet and worldwide satellite systems. Today, national leaders have instant, direct access to millions of people -- most without any training analyzing sophisticated persuasion techniques -- an imbalance in concentration of power relatively new in human history.

What all citizens should know about the persuasion power of a President:

♠ A Presidents speech is written by someone trained in linguistics and persuasion called ghostwriters.

♠ Presidents often use teleprompters (one way glass, invisible to onlookers) to give the illusion they are speaking effortlessly and intelligently without notes (not simply reading lines written by others).

♠ Presidents have a huge staff and budget for PR including not only for the White House, but also for every subdivision within the Executive Branch. For example: whitehouse.gov, usa.gov, fedword.gov, defenselink.mil, dvidshub.net.

♠ Presidents often identify their own plans and their own Administration with the nation. Thus, any criticism, dissent, or disagreement with the President --or the current Administration's policy -- is often attacked as being "unpatriotic", as being disloyal to the country.

♠ Presidents are in control of the interviews, the Q & A sessions, and of granting access to the press.

The White House Press Corps is a very small group of approved reporters, with limited access time. Reporters who ask tough questions are unlikely to be called often; friendly reporters often ask easy questions which allow the President to talk about policies favored. Presidents often use the press simply as "message multipiers" - to repeat PR versions from the White House writers.

PERSUASION OF A CAUSE
Source: gsunow@govst.edu

Cause Groups are those which seek committed collective action. The persuasion of any cause group can be analyzed with this predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk," a useful structural framework to identify and to sort out parts of complex, emotional controversies. If you know this pattern, then it helps you to see or to infer the rest of the overall picture whenever you encounter bits and fragments of this kind of emotional argument.

1. Threat ----- 2. Bonding ----- 3. Cause ----- 4. Response

1. The Threat
Persuaders are problem-makers who intensify a threat by using words (warnings, name-calling, horror stories) and images (atrocities pictures) to intensify the threat to the group and the evil of the leader of the Other. Persuaders know that people have predictable fears, summed up here in one sentence: "We fear that someone stronger (DOMINANCE) will take away our life (DEATH), our possessions (DESTRUCTION), our territory (INVASION), our freedom (RESTRICTION); or that someone else has more (INJUSTICE); or that a human system will break down (CHAOS).

2. Bonding
No matter what threats or causes are involved, the three basic themes in bonding actions are the same, involving: Unity ("united we stand"), Loyalty ("be true to your . . . "), and Pride ("we're number one . . ."). Bonding activites, relating to both the present and the past, involves many kinds of organized group activities (teams, parades, picketing, chanting, singing, wearing uniforms).Such activities are important not only for gathering the group together, but also for keeping it together, ready for action. Once a group is bonded, a structure and organization comes into being. Individuals often gain self-esteem from joining such groups. People, especially leaders, have roles to play and jobs to protect. So, bonded groups need a sense of movement and progress, often obtained by introducing new threats and new causes.

3. The Causes
A cause involves a sense of duty to defend someone from a threat and gain a benefit. People working for a cause often increase their own self-mage and have a sense of moral superiority, self-righteousness. ("We are informed and good; they are ignorant and evil.") Causes often conflict, sometimes directly, more often indirectly. Opponents often disagree on what is the main issue. Dominance, or power, is sometimes the "hidden agenda." Related causes often cluster, so group-bonding attempts often overlap. Cause rhetoric can sometimes be controlled, like a thermostat, by organized groups, but sometimes gets out of control, like a wildfire, because individuals may internalize a strange mix of messages and respond in violent ways.

4. The Response
Effective cause group rhetoric usually identifies specific actions to be taken by the receptive audience. Often, an urgency plea is used, together with some common triggering words.

Analysis of these 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 analysis does help us to sort out some very complex emotional arguments, to identify the examples, and to define the key issues.

As average citizens, neither you nor I will ever have access to the inner circles of power in politics, governments, or among the professional persuaders of the many organized cause groups which target us as receivers of the messages. But, we can prepare ourselves by learning some of the basics used by all.

Our understanding of predictable patterns may help us defend ourselves from being deceived or exploited by others, or from being self-righteous or narrow-minded ourselves. From our understanding of how others also see their roles, we may gain tolerance, perhaps compassion.

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (1966), on the need to recognize the pattern of "militant enthusiasm": "The first prerequisite for rational control of an instinctive behavior pattern is the knowledge of the stimulus situation which releases it. Militant enthusiasm can be elicited with the predictability of a reflex when the following environmental situations arise.

First of all, a social unit with which the subject identifies himself must appear to be threatened by some danger from the outside.... A second key stimulus which contributes enormously to the releasing of intense militant enthusiasm is the presence of a hated enemy from whom the threat to the above "values" emanates.... A third factor contributing to the environmental situation eliciting the response is an inspiring leader figure.... A fourth, and perhaps the most important, prerequisite for the full eliciting of militant enthusiasm is the presence of many other individuals, all agitated by the same emotion...." (Italics mine. I treat his first two points in "Threat"; the second two in "Bonding.")

THE "SO-CALLED POLITICAL DIVIDE"
Source: gsunow@govst.edu

Expect people (e.g Left and Right) to have very different worldviews and assumptions. In conflicts, expect persuaders to attack, and to emphasize their differences in kind, degree, and focus.

Expect the basic content of negative charges about the other candidates to be: "They are incompetent and untrustworthy; from them you'll get more "bad" and less "good."

Expect some political persuasion targeted at one's own group ("under the radar" - using very selected computer address lists, etc.) seeking collective committed action (join, donate, vote) to use the pattern of a "pep talk". Persuaders use words to resolve the will, to stir the feelings (often fear and anger), and to trigger action: basically, what to believe, to feel, to do.

Expect people often to act, not only in their own self-interest but also to have "Righteous anger" against the Other, as being harmful, unjust, unfair, or unreasonable: intentionally evil or unintentionally duped.

Expect the frequent repetition of negatives, sometimes by direct, explicit charges, but more often a single image or phrase to be used as shorthand, as a "condensation" symbol, to suggest a cluster of negative associations linked with "bad" things which people already feared or disliked.

Expect verbal aggression to stir the emotions: fear, anger, resentment, disgust. Expect name-calling (attack words, explicit charges); "horror stories" (narratives - including rumors) and "atrocity pictures" (nonverbal images) to demonize the Other.

Expect everyone to have predictable fears (e.g. about death, destruction, loss of possessions, freedom, territory; humiliation and injustice). Expect persuaders to know this and how to use it in stirring up "hot button" and "wedge" issues.

Expect warnings about the urgency and danger to be intensified by using the language of extremes -- if the Other wins. The greater the problem, the greater the need for a solution.

Expect persuaders to be problem makers, intensifying existing fears in order to excite, bond, and direct their own group to an action response (save, defend, fight, stop, change).

Expect omission to be the primary way people downplay their own "bad." People can suppress, conceal, hide, cover-up their "bad" (errors, crimes, problems, weaknesses, any unfavorable information) by means of secrecy. Governments, administrations often can use censorship, controls to ban the press or internal critics; silencing, eliminating, or "disappearing" the opposition.

Expect denials ("saying it isn't so") to include deliberate lying to others and self deception. For example, denying that something is, or is bad, or is not that bad, or denying responsibility ("I didn't do it") or intent ("I didn't mean it"). Wishful thinking, alibis, excuses, and "plausible deniability" are also common ways people deny reality, deceive themselves, downplay their own "bad."

Expect euphemisms to downplay one's own "bad" by using softer words to minimize, understate, sweeten, blur or obscure the "bad."

Expect diversions as a very common defense, to distract focus away from main issues, to focus on side-issues, to counter-attack others. Traditional names include diversionary attacks against the person (ad hominem); stirring up people's emotions or fears (ad populum); sympathy appeals (ad misericordium); "attacking a straw man"; "red herrings"; "bread and circuses"; "pointing to another wrong"; dismissals ("it's all politics"): "poisoning the well" (the media is biased); or any evasions, or stalling to avoid substantive issues.

Expect confusion to mask or hide problems, a "smokescreen" effect. Confusion can be accidental (carelessness, errors); but, language can also deliberately be used to create confusion by means of ambiguity, vagueness, unfamiliar words, jargon, contradictions, circumlocutions, circular definitions. In a wider context, confusion can be caused by frequent changes or variations, or anything to overload the audience.

Expect neglect to be the primary way people downplay others' "good." Such neglect is passive aggression. Many people are egocentric and ethnocentric: they simply disregard, ignore, or lack concern for other groups, strangers, or foreigners. In war, for example, people often know very little about their opponents' culture, history, customs, beliefs, family life, or any favorable aspect of opponents.

Expect intolerance. People often deny (block out, won't listen to) any contrary ideas, opinions, or beliefs. Often people "frame an issue" in one way, then later reject any facts which contradict their pre-conceptions.People often won't consider the possible "rightness" of their opponents' Cause, of their opponents' legitimate needs and wants, of their opponents' genuine fears and grievances.

Expect disrepect Words and attitudes are often used which are patronizing, or condescending toward others, humiliating others, treating others as less than equal, or less than human. Humor (mockery, sarcasm, satire) is used to belittle, degrade, insult, or ridicule others.

Expect the more that language is abstract and general (including labels, numbers, statistics, charts, polls, body counts), the less that people are able to "see" ( to comprehend) the specific individuals of the Other. In domestic politics, for example, it's easier to hate someone who is abstractly labeled a "Liberal" or "Conservative" than it is to understand a real person -- a friend or a neighbor -- whose worldviews and assumptions are different.

In war, it's easier to kill "things" than to kill human beings (mothers, fathers, children). We often do need to generalize, but remember abstract language dehumanizes.

Since ignorance and apathy are dangerous to a democratic society, citizens need to give more attention to a greater understanding of political rhetoric. They need to become more aware of the significant changes recently in persuasion, and the growing imbalance between the professional persuader and the average person.

Every government, every political party, every religious group, and every "cause" group now has this ability to combine sophisticated techniques, psychological insights, and the new technology to target people untrained in persuasion.

The party in power will say "Keep the Good" | The party seeking power will say "Change the Bad".

Two common reactions to political lies are vague indignation ("something ought to be done") and cynical resignation ("nothing can be done").

Both extremes can be avoided. Deception, like violence, has always been a part of the human history. To recognize this does not endorse deception, nor justify inaction. We do take action to control violence, to reduce the degree, to limit the kinds, to reduce the causes and ameliorate the effects.

VIDEOS

Frontline: The Persuaders <-----DON'T MISS THE CHAPTERS: GIVING US WHAT WE WANT and THE NARROWCASTING FUTURE!!!

Manufacturing Consent: Necessary Illusions

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media pt. 2

The Century of the Self pt. 1 pt. 2 pt. 3 pt. 4