Tag Archives: Rhetoric

Occupy Wall Street: Lessons from the 1950′s on Creating a Movement

On December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks helped changed America by refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, launching the Montgomery bus boycott.

On September 17th, 2011, a group of frustrated citizens from all stripes of life took over a park on Wall Street, launching a protest that has now spread around the world, a call against the grotesque excesses of modern capitalism.

The civil rights movement, in my opinion, the greatest grassroots movement in American history. But it is amazingly, little understood by most Americans. Over the past several years, I’ve taken upon myself to read about the fascinating history. It at one makes me incredibly proud to be an American, and disgusted. The intense bravery, self-discipline, and determination of those of all colors, against the cruelties of segregation. The horrors they faced perpetuated by people in power, who used despicable tactics against fellow humans beings.

Yes, we all know about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, but how many Americans, especially of my generation, can name another civil rights hero? Two week ago we lost a great man when Reverand Fred Shuttleworth passed away – one of countless heroes of that generation. MLK didn’t do it alone, and it what amazes me the most – how so many people stood up against injustice, and how so many did it peacefully. It was a true movement. Not a perfect movement, by any means, but a true one.

The demands then were not for an excise task, but for a fundamental shift in how society treated a whole classes and races, a rethinking of human dignity. That movement, though it has accomplished a lot, is not over. It didn’t end with the Voting Rights Act.

We all like to think that we’d be on the right side of justice if put in those situations. But I truly wonder if I could match their bravery. Americans as a whole have a lot to learn from the civil rights movement, about both our potential for good, and our potential for evil.

One myth that has sustained is that of Rosa Parks. The story goes that she, one a spontaneous day, refused to give her seat, and the movement launched in response. The reality is that Rosa Parks was a leader, and that the campaign was planned well in advance, and she was the catalyst who choose to take action.

Movements don’t happen by chance – they take planning, preparation, and leadership. That is one thing we forget about the civil rights movement, which worked incredibly hard to organize in segregated communities throughout the South, where people had almost no access to information. By letting this myth survive, we diminish the hard work of thousands in this movement.

I first heard about Occupy Wall Street back in July. Adbusters, a magazine that I’ve been subscribed to, whenever I have a home, for nearly eighty years, has been posting articles on their blogs, and in the magazines, for months. Within particular circles were deep discussions about what form the movement should take – the chief inspiration being Tahrir Square in Egypt. Incremental change, the purview of President Obama’s 2008 election, wasn’t doing nearly enough when looking at the immediate problems facing humanity – climate change, inequality, and rampant capitalism. But how should such a movement be structured?

There were articles on protest tactics.

Civil disobedience vs. Violence

What does revolution mean in Canada?

I was skeptical, but hopeful. In 2006, I’d joined when Adbusters had organized local action groups, in Los Angeles, only to be dissolutioned by the lack of action by the group – we could never agree on a single tactic, and most people didn’t do their fair share of the work. Why would this movement be any different, I thought? So I read the articles – in-depth, and thoughtful – but did not head down to Wall Street on September 17th.

What makes a movement? When do social factors reach a point where action is inevitable, as it was in Birmingham that day in 1955. Have we reached a tipping point today? Is change near? I’m hopeful – a realistic idealist. Occupy Wall Street has made me realize that movements can still happen in today’s world. It has also made me realize how difficult the challenge will be.

The organizers knew exactly where to take their inspiration from. The final Adbusters blog post before the protest began – “Some inspiration from Martin Luther King, Jr. for this Saturday“. There is another lesson from the civil rights movement – setbacks will happen. You’ll lose patience, and want to turn to more radical tactics. There will be discord. People will infiltrate and try to divide you. The media will ignore you when you do good, and shower you with attention when you do bad, even if just for a moment.

But the odds we are facing, while great, pale in comparison to what southern blacks faced in the 1960′s. In their resolve, we can find strength. They faced down an entire unjust system, and brought about change.

Yes we can.

Share

Wedge Issues ’08: A Historical Preview

As we get closer to November, I thought it would be useful to examine the devil in modern politics. The wedge issue. What role will it have this fall, and will it once again doom Democrats chances for the White House?

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

Continue reading

Share

Wedge Issues '08: A Historical Preview

As we get closer to November, I thought it would be useful to examine the devil in modern politics. The wedge issue. What role will it have this fall, and will it once again doom Democrats chances for the White House?

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

Continue reading

Share

Debuking the Post-NH Media Narratives

The media narratives are out. The Clinton’s, once again the Comeback Kids, the race is thrown into disarray. With New Hampshire and Iowa finished, and we have no idea who will be the nominee on either side of the aisle, no clear frontrunner on either side.

So let me take a few of the media narratives and throw in some facts. You know, the basic elements of TRUTH and Reporting?

Crossposted at Dailykos

1) The Pollsters Messed Up Completely

LiveScience.com has a great article on what actually happened with the polls. The mainstream media (MSM) wants to show a different narrative, though, that Clinton came back from impossible odds. That Obama lost his support at the last minute. But let’s look at the pre-Iowa and post-Iowa numbers from Real Clear Politics.

Pre-Iowa (Jan 1-2)
Clinton: 34.4
Obama: 26.3
Edwards: 19.2

Post Iowa (Jan 4-5)
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3

The Pollsters got two of the three right – Obama’s total, and Edwards total. They failed miserably in getting Clinton’s total correct, understating her support by a large 9%, far outside the MOE. It looks as if most of the undecideds turned to her in the last day, and exit polls agree.

2) Post-Iowa: Clinton Surged, Obama Didn’t

Obama DID surge. Look above at his pre-Iowa poll numbers. He finished with 37%, a healthy 11 point bump from Iowa. The story is Clinton ALSO getting a bump, moving up 5 points after Iowa, and Edwards receiving absolutely no bump from his 2nd place finish. I turn to fladem’s great analysis of post-Iowa bumps. Clinton recieved the typical second place bump of about 5 points, and Obama got a slightly below average first place bump of 11 points. If you notice, Fladem’s projected NH results based on if Obama came in first in Iowa, Clinton 2nd, and Edwards 3rd closely matches what actually occurred.

Clinton refused to concede second place to Edwards, and with the media acquiscence, stole the mantle of second place from Edwards. Edwards attempts to built momentum and make it a two person race failed, and he faltered into third far behind the top two finishers.

3) Edwards is Toast

It is true that Edwards recieved almost no momentum from Iowa, and as a result, he’s getting almost no media coverage now. But we’ve heard this story before. New Hampshire has a history of voting against Southerners. Look at Clinton in 1992, or just across the ballet, at Huckabee and Thompson. Yet Huckabee isn’t considered dead after finished WORSE than Edwards. I expect Edwards to regroup and come back strong in South Carolina, which he won in 2004, perhaps once again upending Clinton for second place.

Conclusion

All day yesterday, I had a bad feeling about New Hampshire. And I was right. However, I think this is a good think for Barack Obama. I think we became complacent, not working hard to beat Clinton’s field operation as we worked hard and throughly in Iowa. Now, we won’t take anything for granted, you can guarantee that, and our volunteers, field staff, and political team will be relentless until we wrap up the nomination. An interesting side effect of this is that now, Nevada matters. And that is a good thing for the Democratic Party, that a Western state with a large Latino population will matter, and I for one cannot wait to see if we can Barack the Caucus one more time.

Share

First Hillary Attack Ad – Analysis

Crossposted at Daily Kos

Yesterday, Democratic Courage, a independent PAC which seems to have only one goal – bring down Hillary Clinton – began airing, in limited, highly targeted cable TV spots in Iowa, the first attack ad on Hillary Clinton to come from the left. Much like the sparsely aired Swift Boat ads, the media coverage being allotted the attacks is heavily outweighing the visibility of the ads on their own.

Are the ads effective, and will they have an impact on the Democratic race in Iowa and the other early primary states?

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The ad focuses on a single issue – Hillary proposal, at a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, to give each child in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, an investment in the child’s future. The plan, however, was attacked by Republicans.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is the only top-tier Republican nomination candidate to have made Mrs. Clinton’s proposal central to his campaign speeches, calling it a “socialist” program that will cost $20 billion annually in an address to the Americans for Prosperity conference Friday.

He joked with the anti-spending group that “Hillary Bonds” might come complete “with Hillary’s picture on them” and would cost $20 billion per year. He compared it to George McGovern’s 1972 Democratic campaign promise of $1,000 to every American.

Quietly, and without much political damage, Hillary dropped the plan. Rudy Guiliani hailed it has a victory, but otherwise, and especially in the Democratic Primary race, this incident went unnoticed. To many on the left, it didn’t sound like a great plan – idealistically hopeful, but unfeasible and politically damaging in a General election. That 5,000 could be spent in far better ways.

The ad attacks Hillary for giving in to the Republicans on the 5,000 issue, and not standing up for Democratic values, lacking the courage or conviction to stand up against Rudy Guiliani and the Republicans. The ad plays to our John Kerry fear – fear of a Democratic candidate who will not stand up to the Republicans and who will allow them to make a complete caricature of him or her. It also plays on Hillary’s negative traits – that she is poll driven, only takes positions that are popular, and that she’s calculating. However, Hillary is not percieved as someone, like many other Senators, who succumbs to being attacked, to many that is her strength as a Clinton, someone who has withered the Republican attack machine.

However, since the ad choose an issue that Hillary only mentioned in that one speech (as far as I know), never released it as a concrete proposals, and was generally agreed even on the left as not being a best use of money or a top priority, it’s tough to see how effective this will be with Democrats in Iowa. There are a host of other issues that would have resonated more powerfully with the same message, the most obvious example being the vote to Authorize Force in Iraq, but also her Iran vote, her vote for the Patriot Act, and her stance against timetables until after Nov of 2006.

If this is the first in a series of ads on Hillary, then it makes more sense, but otherwise, minus the media coverage, this ad is far less effective than the numerous Hillary attack ads from the right, and should make a huge impact on the Iowa race. However, it is interesting to see what angle Democratic Courage will be taking against Hillary in the coming months, and it’ll be interesting to see if these attacks stick or not. If they do, this will be like the Swift Boat Attacks on Kerry, an attack on Hillary’s strengths by equating them to her weaknesses.

Share

Is Immigration the new Gay Marriage?

By all accounts, we are a nation in turmoil. We continue to fight an never ending war in Iraq, the housing crisis continues to spread throughout the financial markets, and the economy teeters on the edge of recession. To the observer, these are the greatest issues facing America in 2008. Yet, if you listen to the Republicans debate, its as if these issues don’t existIgnoring the obvious, they ramp up the rhetoric on an different issue, a new scapegoat for all the ills of society. A diversion from the last eight years of failure.

Immigration.

We on the left could dismiss immigration easily. America has greater concerns, and on the issues that matter now, Democrats win, hands down. But when was the last time Republicans ever won on the top issues of the day? Recent election history shows that re-framing the debate through wedge issues has been a winning formula. How many people decided between “you know where I stand” Bush and “flip-flop” Kerry last election on baseless Republican rhetoric? What matters most to America as a whole and what matters Americans at the polls are not the same.

The most contentious moment of the recent CNN/YouTube debate was during the introductory half hour spent solely on Immigration, in which almost every candidate got a say. But Immigration is not only about the 12 million undocumented, but has recently become, to Republicans, the most important issue of national security. Representative Tom Tancredo tied Islamic Terrorism with unsecured borders. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani debated whether or not educational and health benefits should go to the children of undocumented workers. Mitt Romney railed against sanctuary cities.

One argument goes like this: Immigration didn’t work for Republicans in 2006, it didn’t work in 2007, why will it work in 2008?
Yet when CNN spends more time in a debate discussing Mitt Romney’s yardworkers than the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, I begin to see images of Willie Horton, of Gay Marriages in San Francisco, of a little girl plucking a flower. As I watch John McCain declare the surge a success and watch Lou Dobbs declare a jihad on Mexicans, I wonder what we’ll be talking about in October 2008.

The Republicans are once again beginning to define the debate, and when they define the debate, we lose. From furloughs, to gay marriage to Immigration. Driver’s Licenses, Hillary Clinton’s most damaging moment in the election. The ugly whisper campaign about Barack Obama’s religion and his father. Are these merely a taste of what is to come? And how do we reclaim the debate, and talk about things that matter to Americans – ending the War, Health Care, and the economy.

What do you think?

Crossposted at MyDD and Daily Kos

Share

The Rhetoric of Hillary Clinton

This is the first in a 3 part series where I examine the rhetorical styles in the various speeches of the three main Democratic Candidates for President. First up, the frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

This is an academic experiment. In College (at the best school in the world), I studied rhetoric in political speech, and how the different types of appeals, whether they be emotional, logical, or credibility building, help influence the persuasive and idealogical power of speech.

Hillary Clinton
Clinton speeches are heavy in ethos, that is, source credibility. Clinton reinforces her personal strengths, namely, her long resume of experience and her ability to be President on day one. She has been running on experience and one of her main themes as been that she is “ready to lead.” For example, the following line is present in almost every Clinton speech.

Change, change is just a word if you do not have the strength and experience to make it happen. We must nominate a nominee who has been tested, and elect a president who is ready to lead on day one…Fortunately, I have a little experience standing up and fighting for what I believe is right and what I think America needs and how we can get there together.

On the other hand, as a logical argument her speeches are definitely lacking. Look at her transcripts and see if you can find the governing, central argument and a coherent beginning, middle, and end. Though the central theme is her experience and ability, the speech does not lead to a conclusion that strengthens her argument any more than the introduction does. In a way, it is a series of points and red meat that reinforces that single idea but does not build a coherent argument. However, this does not terribly weaken her rhetorical aims.

It is with pathos, emotional appeals, that Clinton make half-hearted attempts and fails to truly engage the audience effectively. Invisibility is a narrative theme that is common her speeches, for example, this line from the JJ speech.

This election is about those Iowans and those Americans who feel invisible in their own country; who feel invisible to their own president. This election is about the woman I met in LeClair. She and her husband both work really hard, but they had to sell half the family farm to pay their medical expenses.

Clinton then goes on to mention three more examples of Invisibility, but all of the examples follow the same, single sentence, nameless face formula. Quantity does not equal quality here, these repeated, weak narratives do not give her speeches much of an emotional punch, not do they provide any avenue for voters to feel a connection to those she speaks of. Better use of emotional narratives would help her soften her image and connect better with undecided voters.

In conclusion, we all know that Hillary Clinton is not a naturally gifted speaker, and therefore, she is using her speeches to underscore her strengths and look, above all, Presidential. This strategy works well for a front runner, since the main goal of her speeches are to reinforce voter’s opinions on her, and her strengths. In modern political speech, emotional appeals engage audiences, while logical appeals are arguments that should answer the basic stump speech question in a well rounded way – why should you vote for me and not for them?

Clinton’s speeches, in contrast, answer this question – “Why I am the frontrunner, and why I will be the next President.” And so far, this persuasive style is working to her advantage.

Crossposted at Daily Kos

Share