Rally reality…
Jodi Wilgoren writes about John Kerry’s ever-changing repertoire of local jokes–those funny little bits used to endear him to a crowd. This technique is ancient–lauded by Aristotle in On Rhetoric–and used regularly by public speakers of all kinds to warm up an audience. Jokes have a strong ethical appeal. But more, according to Aristotle, humor can be an effective weapon against the serious and vice versa.
Is Wilgoren’s column trivial? Is this more “horse-race” coverage or “inside baseball”? Yes and no. Yes, it fits the general structure of those journalistic genres of political coverage. But, no, this column avoids some of the more egregious characteristics of modern campaign coverage because it deals specifically with a rhetorical technique, its purpose and political effects. Rhetorical technique is far more than simply the style of a message. Rhetoric is an interpretive and creative art bound up in the creation of truth.
For the next 78 days, Bush, Cheney, Kerry and Edwards will crisscross the country delivering, for the most part, the same address (driving national political reporters to distraction). But at each stop they will add a little local humor and, one would hope, a few words on the local concerns. For most of the people who show up to these staged events, the words will be new because the most they will have heard from the press are sound bites. They will see a human unmediated by a television screen. And they will hear a voice mediated only by its amplification over a loud speaker. The jokes complete the separation from an experience of one kind (mediated by television) to an experience of a very different kind–mediated by political ritual, which is created mutually by the campaign and the audience.
Political ritual is an important component of the political experience and, I would argue, necessary to keep citizen’s connection with politics vibrant and meaningful. John Tierney interviewed David Kertzer, an anthropologist at Brown University and the author of Ritual, Politics and Power, who said:
“Ritual is absolutely central to modern politics…The press wrings their hands at what they call the lack of substance at conventions, and some people think of political rallies as being outmoded or even dangerous, but rituals like these are essential for creating solidarity and allegiance to a leader.”
This is something felt, not thought. But that doesn’t make it trivial. We humans are passionate creatures; that’s why pathos–the appeal to emotions–has always been a powerful persuader, perhaps the most powerful (despite Aristotle’s wishful thinking about the superiority of logos).
Political rallies are all about the appeals of ethos and pathos. No one attends a rally to hear a tightly reasoned argument on various policies. No–people attend, I believe, to feel a lump in the throat and a quiver of the lip coaxed away from cynicism by Rhetorica’s most human art.
I heard a little of that art last night on the SMSU campus.
Until the press looks more deeply into the rhetoric of campaign politics, it will fail to portray the political experience of those who attended last night and those who will attend countless more rallies across America for all candidates in the weeks ahead. And I am not talking about the simplistic, pejorative understanding of rhetoric held by far too many journalists. I’m talking about something far more fundamental to human experience: the social creation of shared reality and shared truth.
So many days, I feel like I don’t belong here, and today is one of those days. Maybe you would consider a Remedial Rhetorica?
On this post, I have to ask, how on earth will the press be able to convey “the social creation of shared reality and shared truth”? How will the press, looking “more deeply into the rhetoric of campaign politics”, bridge the gap between actual experience and filtered, second-hand experience? What is the practical application of “deep rhetoric” to campaign politics? If you could, I would like to see a sample of this application. Could you write, as a reporter, about the Edwards rally in a way that would convey the social creation of shared reality and shared truth? I am not being sarcastic here, I really would like to know how this is accomplished.
Rebecca…okay, if I find the time to do so, I will. Tomorrow we begin new prof orientation. I’m going to be steppin’ ‘n fetchin’
I’m glad you made this comment. I am often guilty of taking my musings far beyond what is immediately practical, or even possible, in journalism as it is practiced today. But that’s one of the ways we academics push the boundaries of knowledge outward–or at least that’s how we justify it
I think the Wilgoren column gives us a clue: What would happen if a reporter, local or national, actually covered the part of the address aimed specifically bonding with the audience–actually took these parts seriously as political communication? Another way to get at it: What if reporters treated political ritual as an important persuasive moment rather than simply the smoke-and-mirrors of campaigning?
Short answer: There would be more to discuss that the horse race.
Here’s an example from the Edwards address: Following the lead of some local politicians who spoke first, Edwards remarked at the large turnout of Democrats for a Greene County rally, i.e. there are supposedly few Democrats here. What if a reporter were to explore that observation a bit? What does it mean to this campaign that so many turned out? Who were all those people? What are the conditions that make Green County a haven for Republicans? Are those conditions changing? Is this significant beyond the county borders? Etc.
I’d love to know the answer to all those questions.
May I add that, in newspaper articles at least, I would like to on occasion see a description of what actually happened? You know, something like “Joe Rodriguez introduced the candidate, drawing attention to his support for the Prebnol Amendment. The crowd cheered this reference to Senator Prebnol, who remains popular. Then, in his brief speech, the candidate said []. The crowd was initially boisterous and grew restless as the candidate detailed the economic situation, but references to the local high-school football seemed to rouse the crowd.” Etc., etc. You know?
Instead of “The candidate tried to appeal to such-and-such a constituency. He is still two points ahead in this state, which is within the margin of error, but his opponent is rapidly closing. His opponent has $500 quadrillion dollars to spend on ads, such as the recent one showing the candidate as a mime.” Etc., Etc.
        ,
-V.
I think you are very correct about the importance of political rituals. It’s unrealistic to expect each individual to make themselves experts on policy. They need shorthand ways of making sense of the candidates and the rituals, however insincere in some ways, allow them to take some measure of the candidate. My belief is that most people vote by “feel” ie, for the candidate that seems to be closest to their overall values regardless of the particular policies. Sometimes you can tell a lot about a person by the way he or she tells a joke. Plus, I believe that the necessity of meeting people and having to talk to them on some human level helps to ground candidates. Unfortunately, the media tends to look at these rituals as ways by which the candidates coopt the dumb yokels.