The Art of Persuasion

"The concern of the propagandist is not how we think but how we feel." (O'Shaughnessy, pg. 41)
"Rhetoric is power." (ibid., pg. 83)

The book Politics and Propaganda is turning out to be a very enlightening and engaging book. What is interesting to question is the intent of the author in writing the book. Is it to degrade the use of propaganda and exalt the use of pure logic and reason in debate, or is it to merely open our eyes to the fundamental role propagnada, by which I mean rhetoric and myth and symbolism, play in our society, both micro and macro?

It seems to me that a fine line (metaphor) spearates the two aims. Politics is propaganda; for what is politics other than a series of debates and compromises and interactions in which many people with different values compete for power. Senator Sam Brownback spoke at YU here this morning and he said that it is impossible for one not to bring his own personal values into the public square, religion included, for religion is a bastion of moral values. And to implement an action through ones value system in a Congress of people requires their consent as well. A great way to do this is through persuasion, or propagandising. NIcholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy describes the job of the propagandist as difficult since he must come across to the audience in a way that would pursuade them to agree, but at the same time paying attention to their pre-dispositions on an issue. For example, as was constantly brought up in class: the USA PATRIOT Act. This act was a call to expand the power of the executive branch. Objectively, however, it should have been controversial at the time instead of being placed on the desks of Congressmen and having to vote on it ASAP. It turned out ot be controversial. The title iteself was an act of rhetorical propaganda. The name "patriot" resonated with the Congress and it passed in the Senate 98-1. For who would not want to be a patriot?

O'Shaughnessy lists three essential components to propaganda, without which, it simply wouldn't work:
Rhetoric
Myth
Symbolism

What these basically do is compress meaning into symbols that excite emotions, and the propagandist can then leash the audience into following his lead. Rhetoric, specifically, when used powerfully enough, can convince people even without making an intelligeible argument. For example, the crisis in Darfur is not spoken about widely enough. But what does circulate for the most part are symbols, such as a crying African boy or the phrase, "not on my watch", these are methods of propaganda attemting to initiate action. They aren't arguments, but merely implications. They imply an end of an argument being: "we must act now".

Last year a CEO of an Attorney group came to speak at YU and said that the most important part of a case is the way it is presented. It's rhetoric and imagery. O'Shaughnessy discussed this when he brough up the case of someone being tried for pedophilia and the prosecutor compared him to Captain Hook. This imagery stuck with the jury. It's what Jon Stewart refers to as "theater", a mere show of connections and linkages that may not have anything to do with the case as it is. Imagery is extremely powerful.

We are just getting over the elections and have seen many political ads. These are propaganda, no doubt about it. Especially the attack ads. They play on emotions of people, such as fear and worry. They tap into these emotions via music, symbolism and rhetoric - primary ingredients of propaganda. We watched one where a candidate is talking to his viewers from a church with a cross inconspicuously in the background. He is talking in a soothing voice. This is giving a message to the viewers in and of itself. If he were to appear with a rock star, that would give another image, a baseball cap would be another. O'Shaughnessy discussed the effects symbols could have on different societies. For example, the baseball cap is an American, hedonistic and self-centered symbol respised in Europe.

O'Shaughnessy also discussed the concept of "reality structuring": that words construct reality. So, when the Bush Administration decided they wanted to go into Iraq, they didn't go about it by arguing that democracy is better than authoritarianism and that the people there aren't happy, or even by speaking to excess of the fear of WMDs. They simply linked Saddam Hussein with 9-11, itslef a loaded term of pain, filial grief and national revenge. This was enough to get people roused up for war. But what are the consequences of such false persuasion? Well, yesterday the Republicans lost the House and today Rumsfeld resigned.

With all the deception and cunning involved in propaganda, there is also an element of necessity in it. We live in a world of symbols, even different colors can represent diametric ideas (red and blue for example). Constant reading and cold argument may have intrigued and stimulated the minds of people in the past, but it has apparently lost its full effect now. We have to face reality and a way to move people to action is through tapping into their emotions. The difficult part is knowing where to draw the line. O'Shaughnessy also describes as one of the aims of propaganda is the seeking of paradise and utopia. Granted that it is probably not reachable, it is still a method of motivation. Another aim is coping. It would be very difficult for the American people to have to deal with waking up in the morning and reading in the paper that 450 loving souls were lost as they tried to help their families. But, this of course can easily be covered up by saying that "the US Army crushed the opposition of 450 insurgents yesterday". "The truth can be impossibly painful - and self-deception may thus be a necessary strategy for survival (pg. 47)."

Propaganda is also so widespread now because of "the uncertainties of our time [and] the lack of an inherited definiteness (pg. 69)." We are vulnerable becuase we live in a confused and fast paced world where security and values are thrown around. Another reason we are also enslaved to symbols is the role television and the media has played in our lives: "In television eloquence, visual moments have replaced words: such visualities bypass the critical faculty and we should not in fact look to television for much by way of explanation (pg. 81)."