Let Us Not Talk Falsely Now, The Hour Is Getting Late

Returning to the ancient Greeks, we rediscover ”rhetoric,” understood as the art of persuasive speech. (The Greeks had absorbed the tradition from the Egyptians and the Middle East.) If your goal was to get a law passed, prevail in a court case, or win an election, you had to study and learn rhetoric. If you were serious about winning you had to convince the legislators, the judge and the jury or the public that what you said was true and that they should vote accordingly.

What has complicated the study of rhetoric ever since is the controversy and confusion between rhetoric as a technique for control versus a method of discovery.

When used as a technique, rhetoric will often target emotions, especially anxiety, fear and dread. For example, Proposition 3 on the recent Republican Party Primary ballot begins, “Texans should not lose their jobs.” Proposition 8 refers to “genital mutilation surgery.” Proposition 1 asserts “the federal government’s refusal to defend the southern border.” Perhaps the feds are too busy with, Proposition 7, “federal takeover of state elections .”

Technique will also conceal its own lapses in logic and failures to produce compelling evidence. Proposition 2 wants to “eliminate all property taxes within ten years” while Proposition 9 says that when parents choose private over public schools “funding should follow the student.” Proposition 4 wants schools (no mention of teachers) to teach “American exceptionalism and reject Critical Race Theory” but Proposition 10 says “government should have no control over the conscience of individuals.”

Technique also uses style to distract focus from what is being said to how it is being said. A classic discussion of this issue surrounds Leni Riefenstahl’s film, “Triumph of the Will” (1935). Its music, camera work and narrative structure still set a high standard for all propaganda, perhaps all cinema, even though its subject was the rally of 700,000 Nazis and Hitler at their 1934 Party Congress. Performance remains an effective rhetorical technique, as demonstrated by the enthusiastic reviews from MAGA rally attendees. “He tells it like it is.” That is, the charismatic performer at the rally articulates, manifests, represents, testifies to what the follower believes has been suppressed unfairly. Like the teenage boy who, at his first Stones concert, having seen Mick Jagger do his rooster strut, believes he has discovered his true identity.

On the other hand, the authors of the ballot propositions do use other methods often considered fair by students of rhetoric. There is the rule of three: blood, sweat and tears; Dr. Pepper at 10, 2 and 4; Mom, the Flag and Apple Pie; God, guns and gays; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; one-third of a nation ill housed, ill clothed and ill fed. Proposition 1 gets in a twofer. “Texas should immediately deploy the National Guard, Texas Military Forces, and necessary state law enforcement to seal the border, enforce immigration laws, and deport illegal aliens.” Likewise, composing the ballot propositions as a list of ten rather than, say, six or fourteen lends it credibility. It certainly worked for Moses, not to mention David Letterman.

Also, to be fair, a list of ten statements with yes or no options is a legitimate form of call and response. Had the authors studied Critical Race Theory, they might have recognized the potential for more rhythmic phrasing, like that found in plantation slavery work songs. Instead, they chose to manipulate another technique: confirmation bias. All ten propositions use the verb, “should,” to encourage agreement. Most of us are agreeable, we would rather not be seen as difficult, and besides all of us attended schools where we learned (unless we had teachers with diverse perspectives) that there are only right questions with right answers.

Could the authors have used different language to bring their rhetoric closer to being a method of discovery? For example, how might they have reworded Proposition 6? “The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature should end the practice of awarding committee chairmanships to Democrats.” Maybe something like the following, which might show up as a proposed resolution at the Democratic Party State Convention in Dallas, July 14-17.

Whereas, Democratic legislators through most of the Twentieth Century shared governance with Republican colleagues because they believed all Texans deserved to have their votes represented and

Whereas, even when Texas turns blue, nearly one-half of the voters will still choose Republicans and

Whereas, Democratic legislators understand that policy reforms will only be effective if accepted by more than a slim majority of the public,

Be it resolved that the Texas House and Senate will be organized as bipartisan chambers with shared respect among the members.

You might say that is a liberal democratic dream but, as Putin is discovering, fantasies die hard.

Tom Denyer has resided in the county since 1979.