Analysis: Rhetorical devices of deception, and other notes
Joepistole said:
When one has to be deceptive and sacrifice soo much intellect, as Republicans/Tea Partiers do, in order to beleive the party line - maybe you should reevaluate your point of view.
The sacrifice of the intellect—as I believe it was St. Ignatius Loyola explained—is that which God most desires. It is at the heart of blind faith.
Any blind faith.
A couple of ideas that seem absent from our neighbor's consideration of the issue:
I. Rhetoric
The word "rhetoric" often refers, in American parlance, to the specific words someone speaks, e.g., "violent", "revolutionary", or "extremist" rhetoric. But rhetoric itself is an old concept referring to something more general. The most common contemporary treatment of the word considers specific forms and manners of rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Arthur appears to not recognize a rhetorical proposition. But there might be a reason for this.
II. Literalism
While so many people speak colloquially, even in "official" circumstances, there seems to be a growing demand to receive those words "literally". I put the word "literally" in quotes because I don't find that brand of literalism particularly reliable about the definitions that asserts. I mean, for all the times my mother said something or another about wringing our necks, neither my brother nor I ever actually feared she would try to throttle us. We understood, even aged in single-digits, the difference between the literal and figurative.
Most people still do, but there is a strange, pervading demand in our public discourse that people set aside their comprehension and perceive things according to an unnaturally strict literalism that is also tremendously faulty in its assessments.
I was a bit late to the internet among my generation, picking up my first telephone modem and internet service in 1997. Networks were hardly new to me; I admit being puzzled by people who could navigate a company network but trembled before the internet.
That's actually beside the point; I just remember those years as particularly transformative, both personally and culturally.
My brother, who was already comfortably ensconced in HTML culture, was excited. A new age of letters, he predicted. People would
write, instead of just call each other across a phone line. Communication would improve, be richer, find new vitality. I'm hard-pressed to recall him ever being so optimistic about anything larger than, say, Stanford's chances in the Orange Bowl.
What
really happened, of course, horrified him.
By 2001 or so—I seem to recall musing over a certain website while sitting in a particular office, which I left in early 2002—there were handbooks published online offering writing advice and style guids for professionals. Striking to me at the time were the prominence and frequency of advice along the lines of, "Don't write office memos in netspeak shorthand." Apparently, people needed 2B told.
So I tend to blame a certain phenomenon on the fact of the internet and what people have done with it.
The
art of rhetoric has degraded in the twenty-first century. One popular approach to the new sophism is a method colloqually known as "fisking", after journalist Robert Fisk. And while some might praise Fisk for his incisive analysis, or imagine themselves so artfully skilled, much of what passes for fisking is nothing more than manipulation.
Attend, for instance, what people quote of each other.
Watch what they focus on. Note what they omit.
Once in a while, misplaced focus and apparent omission are actually the genuine results of a human failure to communicate. Life happens.
But for years, it seems that much of that focus and omission is intentional, a means of manipulating.
Yes, the internet means there are records of so much more information, available to so many more people, than there was in 1994.
Could I have made the transition as smoothly if I was thirty when Netscape launched, instead of eyeing my twenty-second? I don't know. I've never successfully identified the line of best fit describing the apparent generational gap by which buttons with names like "Home", "Reload", "Back Page", and "Forward Page" became confusing. Don't get me wrong; my father can adeptly navigate the internet these days, or figure out how to make a spreadsheet and graph, and attach it to an email. It took him ten years to figure it out, sure, but he did it.
Back in this transformative time, people began to get their first doses of information overload.
And perhaps it is information overload, but here is the thing:
People seem to be forgetting how to read.
No, I don't mean they're losing functional literacy such that they all need the pictorial instructions inside a box of condoms. I don't mean they're unable to read the instructions on a box of toothpicks.
But something has happened.
Even back during the Clinton years, it seemed most people were willing—and many anxious—to avoid the kind of issues Arthur raises. That is, people of differing political views could still speak colloquially without offending one another.
Certainly, we can blame Rush, the Arkansas Project, and others for their degradation of public discourse. And those others certainly include the Air America project. Incidentally, what you're seeing in Arthur's comprehension issue is one of the outcomes of a particular tactic, with which you're familiar, that I criticize. (Yes, I understand fighting fire with fire, but at some point, people are just going to settle in and become accustomed to the fact that everything is engulfed in flames.)
And I'm certain the Bush Jr. presidency didn't help.
Indeed, Bush stands out as an excellent example:
• "I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened." (March 17, 2009; regarding his memoir)
• "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." (August 5, 2004; regarding the War on Terror)
We just spent eight years under the Bush administration perfecting our best exasperated sigh, sad chuckle, and recitation of the phrase, "Yes, George, we know what you mean."
Really, should I take that 2004 Bushism and accuse the former president of treason? Or maybe take him to task over the 2009 statement for thought policing? We know what he meant. We don't take his slips of tongue
literally, else I might point out that George W. Bush was our first female president:
"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today .... He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."
Our first female president emerged on my thirty-first birthday. Thanks, George, for breaking that glass ceiling ....
Or we might just chuckle and say, "Yeah, we get it." Indeed, that syntactical failure is of a fairly common form. We might even pause to consider that particular Bushism specifically for our present purposes.
What Arthur is objecting to is a
rhetorical proposition. And like so much of English in the United States, it is imperfectly phrased. That is, while Rep. King certainly understood the point, and rush transcripts are often dangerously unstable; not only do people speak terribly compared to perfectly proper English, there are no standards defining how we transcribe that. The comma after the word flat? All it describes is rhythm; there was a pause.
If that was an original written form in a manuscript, it would be redlined, and the editor would more likely ask the author to clarify the sentence than to undertake the correction independently.
Yet even relying on the transcript as the authoritative form, Arthur is still skipping the punctuation issue.
And demanding a curious literalism.
Rep. King dispensed with that literalism. I might have a dim view of conservatives, and to be certain it is often said that people are stupid, or politicians morons. But there
is a threshold. Rep. King may not have a college degree, but he did manage to build a private business and from there work his way into public service. He's not, fundamentally, an idiot.
And he had an answer prepared, too:
O'DONNELL: Well, let me ask you this: Republicans believe the world is flat, is that a Republican problem or a geography problem?
KING: If the president has been involved in convincing people the world is flat, it's partly his problem, too.
O'DONNELL: If they want to believe something that stupid, who's fault is it?
KING: If you listen, the president went to Cairo and gave a speech. He said to the people in Cairo, and he went to speak to the Muslim world, that's how he presented it. He said he's a Christian. But he also said he grew up in three continents, of exposure to the Muslim culture, and that he's familiar with the Muslim culture. He also talked about the call to prayer. And so, he reached out and he reminded them of his middle name.
The president has done not a lot to dispel this thing that I think is a myth. And so, I think it is the president's problem, not a Republican problem.
It is, apparently, Obama's fault that so many conservatives who are looking for a reason to hate him think he's a Muslim.
To be certain, Rep. King
is playing this strange sort of "literalist" game, but not nearly to the exacting degree Arthur would demand.
Rep. King, in his
Last Word interview:
• "... the president stood in Cairo and spoke to the Muslim world and professed to be a Christian. If he will stand in front of the Muslim world and make that statement, I take him at his word."
• "He said to the people in Cairo, and he went to speak to the Muslim world, that's how he presented it. He said he's a Christian. But he also said he grew up in three continents, of exposure to the Muslim culture, and that he's familiar with the Muslim culture. He also talked about the call to prayer. And so, he reached out and he reminded them of his middle name.
The president has done not a lot to dispel this thing that I think is a myth. And so, I think it is the president's problem, not a Republican problem."
• "... I'll ask you, go back and read the president's speech in Cairo. That will give a sense of what he's doing that helps move this myth along. And if he will pull back from that a little bit, I'll see if I can move a little that direction."
The Cairo speech. The Cairo speech.
Reading through the Cairo speech, it is hard not to snort derisively at conservative dissimulation. I mean, yes, sure, I suppose I
can see the concern, but its derivation is so petty and ludicrous as to denigrate the worried conservatives.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
• • •
There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
• • •
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
• • •
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
• • •
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
• • •
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
• • •
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth.
It's hard to tell what the president is supposed to pull back from. The assertion of common human purpose and principles? That disputing sides should actually listen to each other? That American culture is not so horribly bigoted as many people perceive it? That three related holy books all speak unto peace?
Maybe they object to the part about the Palestinian obligation to reject violence. Oh, wait ... duh. He also suggested that Palestinians have rights. And that Israel has obligations. And that the United States has obligations, as well. Is that it? Is Obama being too Muslim by banking on the integrity of the United States of America?
What? What, exactly, is the problem? Is it that he wasn't condescending or mean enough to Muslims while speaking in Cairo?
In the meantime, we can certainly avoid that question if we simply skip it in order to complain about the rhetorical sleight that Arthur is working so hard to invent.
That is, if we trade one somewhat simplistic rhetorical game for another fished out of the gutter.
The point is to avoid the larger issues. The method is to forfeit any faculties of context and insist on a specific assertion of literal interpretation for a manipulated quote.
This fake literalism is a cancer to the public discourse; it only distracts from genuine progress. But it can also be consuming, and if we are to accept that Arthur isn't trying to con us, we are left to wonder if perhaps he hasn't waded in over his head.
A rhetorical metaphor was introduced, perceived and understood, and responded to. Rep. King knew the score, and his answer most certainly disappoints people of more liberal political inclination.
Who, I asked of Rep. King's offer to barter for truth,
will defend it?
The answer, apparently, is nobody. Indeed, the strongest defense we've seen is Arthur's little invention, which does nothing to defend King's standard, and only serves to distract people from the larger, apparently unpleasant, consideration.
He's had his say. You and I have had ours. Personally, I think it's quite clear what's going on with his argument, and maybe that's why he's the only one pursuing this spectre.
It's a straw man that we've both given more attention than it deserves. To the other, yeah, we've had our say. It should be quite clear from Arthur's history in this community that nothing will dissuade him from his stupid digression. We don't have to find it honest, or dignified, or even useful.
Meanwhile, if he wishes to present himself in such a manner, fine. I'll accommodate him. That's not a problem. I mean, functionally at least, he
insists on depicting himself in such a manner. And, certainly, an accurate description of this behavior exceeds the site's rules, but nobody can stop you from remembering how he wants us to see him the next time he pops off with one of these idiotic tantrums.
Treating him appropriately doesn't mean excoriating him on a regular basis. Rather, one need only regard his manipulations according to what they are. I might find Rep. King's standard repugnant, but Arthur's is flat-out insane, to put it as kindly as possible. His credibility is assessed according to his conduct.
Leave him to it.
____________________
Notes:
Weisberg, Jacob. "The Complete Bushism". Slate. March 20, 2009. Slate.com. February 11, 2011. http://www.slate.com/id/76886/
MSNBC. "'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' for Wednesday, February 9th, 2011". Transcript. February 10, 2011. MSNBC.com. February 11, 2011. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41512202/ns/msnbc_tv/
Obama, Barack. "Obama's Speech in Cairo". Transcript. The New York Times. June 4, 2009. NYTimes.com. February 11, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html