Rhetoric Notes

For those who study communication, it is an accepted axiom that our language—the words we use—shape and create our reality. Any number of scholars have made such pronouncements: Aristotle, Vico, Kenneth Burke, etc.  The idea they share in common is that the way in which we talk about something—or someone—shapes the way we see it and think about it. In turn, we use these labels and names to both create understanding and to persuade others.

In the political word a label with a long and often powerful lineage is “liberal.”  The connotations of the label have differed by era, but at least since 1988 “liberal” has been appealed to as an accusatory political label.  In choosing 1988 as a significant marker I have in mind the way in which the term was used in that year’s presidential campaign between Republican candidate George H.W. Bush and Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis.  Among other significant elements of that campaign (including the Willie Horton ad, Dukakis's ill fated appearance on an army tank, and Bernard Shaw’s debate question about capital punishment), Bush’s labeling of Dukakis as a “liberal” struck a political chord.  It was such an issue that on the eve of the election Dukakis found himself still trying to explain the label. In subsequent elections, “liberal” has been a favored accusation directed, with varying degrees of success, at candidates such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry.  Further, “conservative” political commentator Ann Coulter has been particularly fond of demonizing the term, using  “liberal” as a means of condemnation in several of her book titles: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, How to Talk Like a Liberal (if you must), and more.

To be sure, these democrat candidates were more “liberal” than their republican counterparts. But the exact meaning of the term “liberal” is unexplored, and ultimately much less important than the emotional response it is intended to evoke.  It has been appealed to as a devil term, a short hand that substitutes for nuanced policy discussions.  Of course the word “conservative” can be used in the same way, but it rarely seems to have as much political traction; if anything, it has more often been a prized badge.  Candidates have worked to establish their “conservative” credentials, but can we say the same thing about “liberal” credentials?  (The term “conservative” is also much more nuanced than it is often given credit for being, as some Wabash student publications have insightfully explored over the past couple of years).

I share these reflections because of a language-shift that seems to have taken place over the past few months—and my current effort to understand its implications. “Liberal” does not seem to be the term in vogue for criticizing President Obama. Perhaps this is because currently there is more perceived baggage to “conservative” (the presumed counterpart of “liberal”) than there has been in some time.  So, instead, President Obama has more often been called “socialist.”  In fact, several months ago Mark Leibovich of the New York Times made note of this apparent shift, writing that “it seems that ‘socialist’ has supplanted ‘liberal’ as the go-to slur among much of the conservative world.” More recently, the label has been used to voice opposition to President Obama’s speech to school children, which was object to by some as an effort at “indoctrination” and as part of a larger “socialist movement,” as well as to Obama’s views on healthcare, which Republican party chairman Michael Steele calls "socialism."

My point isn’t so much to critique what is “liberal” or “socialist,” but to reflect on the shift in language and its implications.  Why has “socialist” become the more popular attack?  It could be because President Obama’s policy proposals are perceived to be so radically different from his predecessors (Click here for a Socialist's view of Obama's "socialism"). Or it could be that “liberal” has lost some of its sting with the “conservative” movement lacking a defined leader and with the nation coming out of a “conservative” presidency that was much criticized.   The deeper question yet is what these labels—liberal, socialist, or even conservative—really tell us about the policies and ideas under discussion.  Unfortunately the answer is, “very little.” The labels are appealed to because they are easy shorthand for broadly conceived ideologies, not because they are nuanced or insightful. Moreover, their broad use may have additional negative consequences given how they are appealed to in the writings of everyday citizens, which I may comment on in a subsequent posting.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday (August 24) marked the twentieth anniversary of Pete Rose’s banishment from baseball. During that time the Rose controversy likely has been the most consistently talked about issue in sports, recurring with every Hall of Fame weekend, Rose appearance at a gambling establishment, and player, columnist, and fan musing on the issue.  And, of course, an anniversary such as this provided a new round of television programs and sports columns.

I’ve long been interested in Pete Rose’s situation; after all, I grew up a Reds’ fan and a Pete Rose fan.  I collected his baseball cards, had his poster on my bedroom wall, and attended Reds’ games.  I also made Pete Rose part of my scholarship, examining his image repair efforts in the wake of his appearance at the 1999 World Series and the infamous Jim Gray interview. In a book chapter entitled “The Rhetorical Resurgence of Pete Rose: A Second-Chance Apologia” (Case Studies in Sport Communication, eds. Robert S. Brown and Daniel O'Rourke, Praeger Publishers, 2003), I argued that the confluence of events presented Rose with a redefined rhetorical situation that gave new salience to his apologia.  Furthermore, the passage of time, the sympathy evoked by the Gray interview, and the disappearance of many of Rose’s accusers from the public eye suddenly made Rose’s rhetoric more appealing. Finally, the fragmentation of contemporary culture—seen through the multitude of media outlets broadcasting parts of Rose’s message—raised his effectiveness and seemingly partially redeemed him in the public eye. 

With that, Rose seemed potentially poised for reinstatement and, by all accounts, privately confessed to baseball commissioner Bud Selig in November 2002.  However, with his public confession issued outside of an agreement with baseball, announced in his 2004 autobiography entitled My Prison Without Bars (and released the same day that a new Hall of Fame class was announced), Rose seems to have lost his chance at a return.  While Rose did confess his gambling, he did so in ways that undercut his effectiveness.  Through his narrative Rose attempted to minimize the offensiveness of his actions and, when possible, evade responsibility by appealing to psychological diagnoses such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Behavior, his acculturation in gambling from childhood, and his unwillingness to lose in any encounter (which made it impossible for him to admit his wrong doing). The result was measured mortification, an apology without contrition and one that sacrificed 15 years of consistency while failing to assure readers that Rose had really learned from his mistakes or truly regretted anything other than getting caught.

What should Rose have done?  Instead of a lengthy book, which required an extended and often unflattering narrative and suggested an economic motive for Rose, Rose would have been well served to first reach an agreement on his baseball reinstatement and/or Hall of Fame eligibility.  Then, at a press conference with the commissioner and his most well known supporters such as baseball Hall of Famers Hank Aaron, Joe Morgan, and Mike Schmidt, a humble, repentant Rose could have expressed his regrets in a more appealing image repair effort.  Yes, Rose could have still written his book, but he should have done so after his confession and after reaching an agreement with MLB.

What does the future hold for Pete Rose? Presently, reinstatement is unlikely.  However, with the passage of time it is likely that Rose will again become more appealing and more people will wonder why he is banned from baseball and if he should be reinstated.  Such questions arise when figures such as Hank Aaron express their support for Rose, when columnists and radio personalities advocate his reinstatement, and as fans try to compare the damage done to baseball by Pete Rose and that done by performance enhancing drugs. Whether redemption is possible in Rose’s lifetime is in serious question, but in the meantime the best discourse strategy for Rose on the issue is to say nothing about his possible reinstatement.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)