Rhetoric
The Greeks invented the science of persuasion – they called it rhetoric. The posts in this category give a brief overview.
Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
90 Days of Anger
What’s wrong with people laughing? The short answer: they just want to go on laughing. That’s good for teaching but not good for politics. 
People love to laugh. If you’re trying to persuade an audience to your way of thinking, it’s good to get them to laugh. They’ll trust you more and, more importantly, they’ll think, “Oh good, she’s funny. Maybe she’ll tell some more jokes.” If they’re anticipating more jokes, the audience will pay more attention. You can get your point across more easily because the audience is primed and attentive. (By the way, this doesn’t work if you tell lame jokes. You have to tell funny jokes).
So why is this bad for politics? Because in political speeches, you’re aiming to motivate people and humor doesn’t motivate. People who are laughing just want to go on laughing. They don’t want to canvas neighborhoods, call friends, give money, storm the barricades, or even get off the sofa to vote.
The emotion that motivates is anger. That’s why political speeches and advertisements are so angry. The politicians want you to do something. Making you angry (and scared) is the simplest way to accomplish their objective. Making you laugh is counter-productive.
In rhetorical terms, the simplest way to make an audience angry is a technique known as “attributed belittlement”. You tell the audience that your opponent (or competitor) belittles them. “They don’t respect you. They think they’re superior to you. They think they have the right to tell you what to do, because you’re dumb. They’re elite and you’re not.” Sound familiar? No one likes to be belittled, so this is a very effective technique. (I’ve used it myself in commercial competition and it works).
So what can you expect in the 90 days leading up to the presidential election in the United States? A flood of angry messages and, more specifically, a tidal wave of attributed belittlement. If you’re like me, you’ll just want to tune out the whole mess.
This is a different kind of communication than I normally teach. I usually focus on “deliberative” presentations — you present a logical argument and the audience deliberates on it. A political presentation is usually a “demonstrative” presentation — you’re demonstrating solidarity and group loyalty, partially by demonizing the opposition. There’s no need for logic. You can learn more about deliberative and demonstrative presentations here.
The Art of Persuasion – Arguing Against Obamacare
What if President Obama doesn’t call me? What if it’s John Boehner who calls to ask for help in crafting an argument against Obamacare? What would I say?
I’d start by saying that opponents of the ACA have already done the heavy lifting. They’ve positioned Obamacare as an infringement on personal liberty and an expensive one to boot. It’s a fairly simple argument to make — “How dare the government tell me — a free thinking American individual — what to do? That smacks of collectivism and, given the history of government programs, it’s going to cost a lot of money. Our budget is already completely out of whack; we can’t afford to do more.”
So which argument is more persuasive? Frankly, I think the argument against the ACA is simpler and, therefore, should be more persuasive. Indeed, it seems to be working already. The most recent poll I’ve read suggests that 50% of Americans are against the law and only 45% are for it. Still, the proponents of Obamacare haven’t been very aggressive in positioning the law as an issue of responsibility. As they sharpen their rhetorical tools, the fault line could shift — probably not dramatically but perhaps just enough to claim a majority. The history of Social Security may give some insight. Social Security was not broadly popular when it first passed and was deemed by many — perhaps a majority — to be unconstitutional. Today, Social Security is the “third rail” of American politics — nobody can mess with it.
The Art of Persuasion – Arguing for Obamacare
The Supreme Court ruling made Obamacare constitutional but it didn’t make it popular. What can rhetoric — the classic art of persuasion — tell us about crafting an argument for (or against) the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? In this post, I’ll sketch out a persuasive argument for Obamacare. In my next post, I’ll sketch out an argument against it.
A general rule of persuasion is that the simpler argument usually wins the debate. So, if President Obama called me to ask for help crafting the argument for the ACA, I’d say two things: 1) Simplify through analogy, 2) reframe to responsibility. (I’d also tell him to make me Ambassador to Ecuador — that’s what I really want).
Simplify through analogy — the simplest analogy is car insurance. We used to allow people to drive without insurance. To cover the damage caused by uninsured drivers, we set up large uninsured motorist funds supported by taxpayers. Ultimately, we got tired of paying for the carnage caused by uninsured drivers — also known as “free riders”, “deadbeats” and “jerks” — and passed mandate requiring drivers to have some insurance in order to drive. The result? Total costs to “responsible” drivers went down because we had to pay only for our own insurance and not also for uninsured motorists.
Reframe to responsibility — opponents of the ACA have positioned it as an infringement on liberty. Supporters should reframe this to personal responsibility. Everyone should take responsibility for the cost of their own healthcare. If you don’t, you’re a free rider – you pass your costs on to other, more responsible citizens. Those who pay for health insurance are also paying the cost for caring for deadbeats and free riders. Sounds a lot like socialized medicine.
What about the dreaded word, “tax”? The Supremes have labeled the mandate a tax, which is precisely why they’ve said that it’s legal. If supporters of Obamacare try to argue that it’s not a tax, they’ll simply appear to be dissembling which will reduce their persuasiveness. So they need to embrace the word, more or less like this, “Yes, it’s a tax. It’s a tax on irresponsibility. If you choose not to act responsibly, then we’re going to ask you to pay into a kitty that will help defray the costs of your care. It’s your choice. Act responsibly and pay no tax. Or act irresponsibly and pay a small tax. By the way, you’re already paying a tax — you’re paying for everyone who doesn’t have insurance but needs health care. Hospitals can’t turn them away, so they send the bill to you.”
Will it work? Well, look at the next post in this series to see the opposite argument.
Speak to my channel
I’m a visual learner. When I understand something, I might say, “Oh, I see”. If you’re a smart communicator, you’ll pick up on that cue and incorporate visual images into your messaging. You might say things like, “let me draw you a picture” or “our vision of the future is….” These phrases speak to my visual channel, establish a bond with me, and help you communicate more effectively. But what if I’m an auditory learner? Or a kinesthetic learner? You’ll need to change your phrasing to connect effectively with me. And what if you’re speaking to a large audience? Which channel do you emphasize? Find out in the video.
Wrong Message
Your girlfriend dumps you. You send her a message: “Please come back. I am nothing without you.” Why is that the wrong message? Because it’s about you, not about her. If you want to persuade someone, state a benefit for her, not for you. Learn more in the video.
My Social Media
