Why A Teen Who Talks Back May Have A Bright Future – NPR

It pays to argue.  Really.

Allen says almost all parents and teenagers argue. But its the quality of the arguments that makes all the difference.

“We tell parents to think of those arguments not as nuisance but as a critical training ground,” he says. Such arguments, he says, are actually mini life lessons in how to disagree — a necessary skill later on in life with partners, friends and colleagues on the job.

Teens should be rewarded when arguing calmly and persuasively and not when they indulge in yelling, whining, threats or insults, he says.

via Why A Teen Who Talks Back May Have A Bright Future : Shots – Health Blog : NPR.

The Limits of Talk – Jon Stewart & Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Numerous outlets have addressed the issues of ideology, racism, ethics, and downright nastiness in the Jon Stewart appearance on Chris Wallace’s Sunday talk show–as well as the aftermath spin, which hasn’t worn down yet. But James Fallows of the Atlantic encourages viewing the Jon Stewart “Fox News Sunday” appearance if only because as it illustrates a key concept of persuasion:

…the way this clip reinforces the concept that you never change peoples minds by scoring logic points or “arguing.” You have to change the entire emotional/narrative game.

via James Fallows – blog – The Atlantic.

Watch the interview as the ‘embed’ code doesn’t always take in WordPress.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.comWatch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

On The Media discusses framing, labels

Two useful stories that focus on different aspects of persuasion, namely how labels (“protestors” or “rebels”?) lead readers to be more or less interested, and the influence of metaphorical framing:

While editors and journalists worry about whether a simple word choice could influence their readers, politicians take another tack. They use metaphors all the time, explicitly in order to persuade people to view things their way. Lera Boroditsky, a psychology professor at Stanford University, conducted an experiment to see just whether this kind of metaphorical framing really works.

via On The Media: This Week.

Debate Classics: Buckley v Chomsky I

Who wins this debate, and why?

Slippery Language

 

Lera Boroditsky talked about Dick Cheney (the famous hunting incident) and “How Language Shapes Thought” in a great clip on the uses (and abuses) of language.

 

The four kinds of political debates this campaign season. – By Christopher Beam – Slate Magazine

The skills of debate are useful to diplomats, as much of the argumentation–although structured in different forms–employs the use of persuasive skills and the ancient art of rhetoric.

Political campaign season is a rich time to evaluate the current status of this oratorial art form.  Debates have also been used as oppositional truth-seeking vehicles for interested citizens.  Are they working in 2010?

No one wins in political debates—least of all the audience. We know it’s a bad idea to watch them. But we watch anyway, thinking: This could be it. This debate, unlike the others, could begin with an exchange of bon mots, transition to witty jousting, probe deeply into most pressing issues of our time, build with a set of passionate but non-clichéd paeans to the American idea, and climax with a final parry-thrust that leaves a verbal dagger lodged in the lesser candidate’s larynx.

That never happens. Viewers are instead subjected to a fire hose of context-free assertions and vague cant. Arguments are oversimplified. Rhetorical pivots are uncreative. Personal attacks are never as vicious as you hope. Even a great train wreck is too much to ask.

via The four kinds of political debates this campaign season. – By Christopher Beam – Slate Magazine.

 

Todd Gitlin On Anti-Muslim Hysteria And Marty Peretz. | The New Republic

Add this to the body of discussions on ‘issue framing’ as a rhetorical device in communication and negotiation–but also as a fascinating contrast between how terror groups, states, and even Americans tend toward dualism.

America inclines to wars of the rhetorical absolute. Adversaries readily turn into menaces; menaces into irresistible blobs and imminent devastations. Fights burst into wars and wars are declared holy. As the nation strives to protect itself from actually existing enemies, the Manichaean strain in American life packages them into the Enemy to End All Enemies.

via Todd Gitlin On Anti-Muslim Hysteria And Marty Peretz. | The New Republic.

Mapping the New York Cordoba House Debate

The issue is escalating and the politics of this debate are hard to keep up with, as if it wasn’t already on the front burner.  Using the skills of a diplomat we can try to follow the discussion.

• Mark Green on HuffPo addresses his InBox–as well as conservatives in a point/counterpoint.
• Today–Wednesday (9/8)–Anderson Cooper 360 devoted the evening to his A-team panel discussion of the Imam’s latest moves, following the interview with Soledad O’Brien.  The discussion covered all the bases (private property, 9/11 sensitivity, interfaith counter-response, as well as the local, national, and international impacts.)
• Ron Paul has chided conservatives for not sticking to their core principles.
• You can even find out about the history behind the name “Cordoba.”

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan articulates the view that its hard to understand the real arguments against building the mosque.

As the far right seems to relish a clash of civilizations, his op-ed strikes me as so transparently constructive, so evidently in the interests not only of domestic peace but of strategic victory against Jihadist terror that I’m again at a a loss to understand why so many have reacted so ferociously to this project. I can see only one way this multi-faith community center is offensive: if you regard the mass murderers of 9/11 to be the true heart of Islam and especially American Islam. I don’t. I never have. In fact, the distinction is precisely what we are fighting for. Or have I just lost my mind?

via Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, Atlantic.com

Sullivan points to Leon Wieseltier’s “exquisite” piece in TNR, who waxes elegant–and provides a useful understanding of the proxemics of pain (e.g., the 9/11 family perspective), which seems to be the side that dominates on CNN’s discussion of this issue, as well the compelling need for tolerance.

There are families of the victims who oppose Cordoba House and there are families of the victims who support it. Every side in this debate can invoke the authority of the pain. But how much authority should it have? I do not see that sentiment about the families should abrogate considerations of principle. It is odd to see conservatives suddenly espouse the moral superiority of victimhood, as it is odd to see them suddenly find an exception to their expansive view of religious freedom. Everybody has their preferred insensitivities. In matters of principle, moreover, polling is beside the point, or an alibi for the tyranny of the majority, or an invitation to demagogues to make divisiveness into a strategy, so that their targets come to seem like they are the ones standing in the way of social peace, and the “decent” thing is for them to fold. Why doesn’t Rauf just move the mosque? That would bring the ugliness to an end. But why don’t Palin and Gingrich just shut up? That, too, would bring the ugliness to an end

via Mosque Notes, TNR.com

This is not an easy conflict to resolve–but important ones never are facile.

Grading The State of the Union Speech

I do miss the campaign season–and the chance to try and analyze the rhetorical successes and misses of pol’s wordfests.  A State of the Union (SOTU) speech is always a great event and worthy of dissection.  Here goes:

Delivery

Adding your sense of humor to a speech can be risky.  President Obama gave it a shot:

Referring to his struggles in getting a health care bill passed, Obama said dryly: “By now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.”

And when Obama announced he wanted to hold monthly meetings that included Republican leaders, he looked at them and said: “I know you can’t wait.”

When Obama introduced first lady Michelle Obama, she sat respectfully in the gallery while others applauded. The president poked a little fun, saying: “She gets embarrassed.”

The lawmakers liked that one.  via Boston Globe

An overview  from Joe Klein:

This was Obama at his best. He wasn’t cuddly, but who cares? He was smart and he was funny–and he was drop-dead serious about the country. The speech should do him some good, but it’s not enough. Now he has to preside, in the true sense of the term.  via Andrew Sullivan

Organization

Mr. Obama’s address clocked in just shy of 70 minutes. It was longer than the speeches typically delivered by President George W. Bush and a little shorter than those delivered by President Bill Clinton. It was nearly shorter than Mr. Obama’s first speech to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009, when he spoke for 52 minutes. via NYT The Caucus blog

This is a much looser SOTU than I got used to under George Bush–much more house of commons–applause is shorter, but more frequent, jeers are obvious, Mr Obama is anticipating it and working off Republican hostility like a stage comic with hecklers. via Economist DiA

Persuasive Value

We expect a lot from the oratorial candidate turned President.  Did he deliver?

But it is striking that Obama has learned strategic communications/framing 101:  don’t repeat your opponents’ arguments. Obama focused on what needs to be done, not what the arguments are against the current plan.  Very smart.  And very difficult for Republicans to counter.  He did it again in the section on the deficit.  from Undiplomatic.

President Barack Obama checked every political box needed to restart his troubled presidency Wednesday night, but that may not be enough to consider his State of Union address a success.  AP via NYT.

From blog FiveThirtyEight, an observation the President needed to exceed expectations–ideally not following the example of Steve Jobs today in the release of the iPad.

Crack WaPo reporter Chris Cillizza observes Obama’s focus on values, framing America’s historical challenge and talking about how we aren’t quitters–appealing to common instincts and setting the stage for his To Do list.

Well crafted, but needs to be followed with the hard work:

Really, I think it’s a solid speech: pragmatic advocacy mixed with appeals to American ideals of an earthy sort; not city-on-a-hill stuff, but help-your-grandmother-across-the-street ideals. He can do this every day, and he can do it intelligently and, at times, even beautifully. To what avail, though, if he doesn’t follow through and produce some real and measurable achievements?  via the Economist Democracy in America

Ways to follow it so you can do your own grading, and a few parting shots:

• NPR Live Blogging
• Transcript from CNN.com
• NYT blog on Supreme Court Justice Alito’s dissent.
• Andrew Sullivan does it better than I can …
• … but Elliott Spitzer giving strategic advice?  Seriously?
• Compare and contrast SOTUs from the Phillipines, Russia, Norway and more.

Grading the Obama Health Care Speech

Let’s look at President Obama’s speech for how it measures up on the standards of  effective oratory (and what you’ll learn more about in class next week)–organization, content, and delivery.

1.  Organization:  A

I didn’t listen to it contiguously, so this is a mashup of my observations and others’ commentary:

• Framing is an important part of a speech–something that you’d look for at a more advanced level of analysis.  Andrew Sullivan muses in his live-blogging discussion:  “His description of the public option – that it can provide more efficient treatment because it doesn’t need to make large profits and because it will have less overhead – is the best framing I’ve heard… He’s framing the public option in the conservative language of competition and consumer choice. Smart move. And he isn’t demonizing the insurance companies: he’s saying they are merely encouraged by the system to over-price and under-deliver.”
• Pivots are words pundits love to use but really are just transitions designed to draw contrast in order to make your original point.  Sullivan, again: “Classic Obama pivot: describe the right and the left and then say he is in the middle. And the Burkean twist: “I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.“”
• Anticipating objections are a key rhetorical device, but complementing old enemies and even chastising friends (in what may be a straw man attack) can be useful to show you are really serious about trying to forge consensus. From Slate.com: “Twice Obama referred to Republican ideas. He praised John McCain’s idea of providing catastrophic care for those who’ve been denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. He also said he was looking into medical malpractice reforms considered by George Bush. He made a detailed appeal for the public option, a favorite of liberals, but then downplayed it, saying it would cover only 5 percent of the uninsured.“

2.  Content  B+

• Good lines make for good speeches.  According to the Economist live blogging of the speech, this one worked:  “No one should go broke because they get sick.” That was a Facebook meme this week, turned into the “status message” of thousands of liberals. Mr Obama’s speechwriter is not yet 30, and it shows sometimes, not in harmful ways.
• Ultimately you have to say something–have a message.  Ed Rollins, Republican strategist on CNN.com sees that Obama “laid out his goals, he laid out his key objectives. The details will come from Congress” but failed to provide the full answers many sought.  “There’s a lot in this that could be challenged tonight.“
• Who is the audience, Congress or the people? (the latter).  Liberals or conservatives? (base + middle).  And in this sense, he didn’t have a lot new to add.  As John Dickerson in Slate.com notes,  “As for the substance, there were some new nuggets. But mostly the president sought to reiterate what he’s been saying for months.”  The problem:  he needs to reach that audience, and get them to vote his way.  And, more importantly, as David Gergen observes on CNN.com, “We saw the Obama we elected.” … “But for a lot of others, I don’t’ think it move them very much…the people he needed to move to reverse the tide.”  Hugh Hewitt agrees.
• Facts are useful things, but prone to misuse.  Politicians and diplomats employ information to their own ends.  Its always good to use them in your own speeches–but its also nice as a consumer to consult a factchecker, such as the NYT in this case.  (Summary: Obama isn’t perfect.)
• Summed up nicely by the oddball conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan:
  

  A masterful speech, somehow a blend of governance and also campaigning. He has Clinton’s mastery of policy detail with Bush’s under-rated ability to give a great speech. But above all, it is a reprise of the core reason for his candidacy and presidency: to get past the abstractions of ideology and the easy scorn of the cable circus and the cynicism that has thereby infected this country’s ability to tackle pressing problems. This was why he was elected, and we should not be swayed by the old Washington and the old ideologies and the old politics. He stands at the center urging a small shift to more government because the times demand it.

  And he makes sense. And this was not a cautious speech; it was a reasoned but courageous speech. He has put his presidency on the line for this. And that is a hard thing to do.

  via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

3.  Delivery:  A-

Tough to compete here–even if you’re a hard-core conservative.  This is Reaganesque, Kennedyesque, and whatever adjective you want to invent.  We are living with a U.S. president who happens to be a pretty amazing public speaker.  (Get over it/enjoy it.)

Still, one laugh line (or was it?) fell flat.  He seemed off on timing with the teleprompter on a few occassions–perhaps a tough critique but not typical for this amazing orator.

Conclusion?   A-  He has to do the work now.  Speechifying is just one part in politics or diplomacy.  Maureen Dowd turned another clever phrase in relating what Obama had to do tonight with what he tried to do in the ‘controversial’ school speech this week:

The president told students on Tuesday that “being successful is hard” and “you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.” He should take his own words to heart. He can live long and prosper by being less Spocky and more Rocky.

But the fact is, making your speech turn into reality is tough. Dickerson summed it up best:

Barack Obama must envy Steve Jobs. In a speech Wednesday afternoon, Apple’s CEO unveiled several spiffy new product updates, and within hours, on millions of computer screens across the country, little windows popped up asking users if they wanted Apple’s new software. If they did, it was seamlessly a part of their lives in just minutes.