The Politics of Sacred Rhetoric: Absolutist Appeals and Political Persuasion

6. The Absolutist Advantage: Sacred Rhetoric in the Bush Era

103 The Absolutist Advantage Sacred Rhetoric in the Bush Era Chapter Six The significance of value language may be more clear to rhetoricians than to politicians. A popular rhetoric text from the 1960s concluded with this “moral law” of speaking: Always act to provide conditions most favorable for mutual understanding between yourself and all concerned. Speaking, if it is to be ethical, must create conditions favorable to the expansion of symbolism and mutual understanding and influence. We define ethical rhetoric as the discovery of the means of symbolism which leads to the greatest mutual understanding and mutual influence. The highest values have the highest consequences. When we use these values in speaking, we may enable man to transform himself and his society. To this end, speaking must commit itself if it is to serve us best.1 A clear example of language that commits itself is sacred rhetoric. This language has certain advantages in the fractured communication process between ideological elites and an inattentive public. But sacred rhetoric may be understood and employed by some politicians more than others. The question I address in this chapter is whether there is a partisan distinction in the use of sacred rhetoric. Is it simply the case that Republicans are the more sacred party, given their propensity for religious foundations and traditional sources of authority? Or do Democrats have their own sacrednesses, also employing the language of limits? If one party employs sacred rhetoric significantly more than the other, it inspires greater intensity and engagement , promotes nonnegotiable and intransigent reasoning by its supporters, and valorizes its candidates. In short, it gains the absolutist advantage. 104 g The Politics of Sacred Rhetoric Sacredness in Presidential Rhetoric: The 2000 Bush–Gore Debates To evaluate the comparative degree of sacredness across the breadth of party rhetoric would be a daunting task. Even limiting the inquiry to recent years, the total amount of political speech is staggering, including the presidential addresses, party convention speeches, and news conferences and their rebuttals, as well as the campaign speeches, television ads, and public discussions for multiple offices at national, state, and local levels. Even a fair assessment of who represents each party would be difficult to identify. Rather than claim to examine a cross section of party language, it may be more advisable to choose a quintessential form of competing party rhetoric and limit ourselves to one clear example. For this task, the presidential debates may be the most meaningful test of partisan differences. They are a straightforward case of attempted persuasion, pitting the two party leaders in direct competition. They take place on a national stage and perhaps have more direct influence on voters than any other single exchange between the parties. They are generally not limited to a single event but take place in consecutive broadcasts separated by extensive commentary and analysis. This forum is also one of the only cases of an explicit simultaneous comparison of the two parties, when they face each other directly, rather than the more usual form of partisan rhetoric in which citizens hear only a single appeal at a time from one side or the other, such as a political advertisement , presidential news conference, or party convention. The 2000 debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore may be especially significant because of their historical timing. They represent an important watershed in political eras and perhaps in party rhetoric: the end of the Clinton era, the return to Republican-dominated national politics, and the solidified influence of the Evangelical movement within the Republican Party. The Bush–Gore debates represent an important initial test of partisan rhetoric in their attempt to persuade, their visibility and impact, their historical timing, and their direct comparison of the two parties. As a means of party comparison, the debates also offer an additional advantage. Mainstream party politicians may be less likely to employ sacred rhetoric than more fringe politicians or the elements of the party more attached to social movements or interest groups. Concentrating on the two party leaders provides a conservative test of partisan differences, because expressions of sacredness are likely to be more muted in the presidential debates than other elements of party rhetoric. By contrast, if we were to The Absolutist Advantage f 105 compare the speeches at the respective party conventions, we would likely find a greater difference in rhetorical styles. By concentrating on the presidential debates we can make a...