Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

In the first chapter of the rhetoric textbook I use, the author writes something that most of my students find hard to accept at first: Opinions are community property. This is an ancient Greek concept. In our current noetic field, opinions are thought to belong to the individual.

Such thinking has some interesting effects on civic discourse. Because we think of opinions as personal, we can easily discount them as “just your opinion,” forgetting that opinions are socially formed and shared by many. Further, to attack an opinion seems to be an attack on the person, so we often think it is rude to do so–hence the admonition not to discuss religion and politics in polite company.

In politics, this notion encourages us to believe something truly odd: that politicians should not change their minds for reasons of political expediency.

Steve Chapman finds this tendency distressing: “Anyone is entitled to change his mind in the light of new evidence. The problem with politicians is that they never seem to change their minds in ways that would hinder their ambitions.” He refers to such flip-flops as empty words.

Oh, really? In other words the collective opinions of a politician’s (potential) constituents count for nothing. Oooops. I don’t think Chapman would like to hear it stated that way, but this is precisely the implication of his assertion. These are not empty words; these are opinions shared by voters the politician hopes to court and then to serve. Leadership can also mean serving the will of the people. Good leadership, and political wisdom, may be thought of as a thoughtful blending of these two positions.

The current thinking leads Chapman to a bizarre conclusion:

Experience suggests that if the candidate you like is elected, he’ll abandon every policy that attracted you, and that if the candidate you dislike is elected, he’ll pleasantly surprise you.

But knowing that doesn’t make the choice any easier. So between now and November, I intend to make an exhaustive study of each candidate’s record, credentials, speeches and position papers. Then, with a wealth of knowledge and a skeptical attitude, I’ll march into the voting booth. And flip a coin.

Failure to keep campaign promises is a serious political issue. But I find that such failure usually has little to do with a conscious attempt to deceive (there’s plenty of research about this if you care to look). Instead, a president’s failure to keep promises usually stems from making promises that are not within the scope of power of the office. Another big reason for failure is that political circumstances change or make good intentions impossible to fulfill. George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” promise is a good example of this.

You will hear no empty words this campaign season. You will hear a range of rhetoric from the sublime to the insipid (including outright lies). But you’ll hear nothing that is without meaning. You’ll hear plenty that may help you make a much better decision than Chapman is apparently ready to make. Chapman is not joking (although I think he’s letting his writerly self get carried away in the conclusion). Such a column makes one wonder what role Chapman thinks he plays in campaign politics.

UPDATE (10:25 p.m.): With my apologies to ZZ Top:

Flip-flop Boogie

I got pol just blew into town,
He’s the one that really gets down.
When he boogie,
He do the flip-flop boogie.
Well now boogie big daddy,
Boogie woogie all night long.

I got a pol he ain’t no schnook,
He kinda funky with his slick French look.
He likes to boogie,
He do the flip-flop boogie.
Well now boogie woogie daddy,
Boogie woogie all night long.

I got a pol, he works on the hill.
He won’t do it but Howard Dean will,
When he boogie,
He do the flip-flop boogie.
Well now boogie big daddy,
Boogie woogie all night long.
Blow your lead blow your lead blow your lead.