A wise debate coach once recognized that those who enjoy pancakes for
breakfast will quickly understand that arguments, like pancakes, are never so
thin as to not have another side. The wise man of Proverbs understood this when
he wrote in Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right,
until another comes and examines him.” We find ourselves in Presidential
candidate debate season, the time every four years when the major candidates
for President of the United States stand face to face and spar with one another
over the philosophies they believe should guide the direction the country. As
consumers of these debates, and all of the philosophical, moral, and cultural
arguments that surround us every day, it is important to engage our minds as
well as our hearts when evaluating the rhetoric coming from both sides. With
this in mind, history has not left us without some guidance. Aristotle pointed out that there are three
factors that contribute to persuasion, Ethos,
Pathos, and Logos.
Ethos is the
goodwill generated by the speaker, pathos refers to the emotions elicited by
the speaker, and logos or the logic employed by the speaker in the art of
persuasion. By all accounts ethos is in deficit supply this year. According to
polling, the two major political parties have selected the most undesirable
candidates in history. And although we are not selecting a Pastor, but a
President, it is important to remember that character still counts. The debates can prove helpful in this matter. The debates squeeze the candidates, reveling
true thoughts and intentions. What is in the well comes up in the bucket, or as
Jesus put it “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” When
examining speech in general and political speech specifically, sensitivity and
complexity are important factors in determining the contents of the “rhetorical
bucket”.
Rhetorical sensitivity may give us insight into the direction each
candidate intends to take the nation. Rhetorical sensitivity is the idea that
the most appropriate words will be employed without the intentional use of
offensive words or symbols. Sometimes this is ridiculed in our society as
political correctness, but perhaps it is better understood as an attempt at
being persuasive without causing undue discomfort to those listening. During
the debates it is often easy to discern the candidates’ true feelings based
upon their verbal and nonverbal interactions with one another and the audience.
Consider how the words and body language of the candidates make you feel and
what thoughts they inspire as you listen to them. If a given candidate is being
intentional they purposely employ words that evoke feelings and thoughts, if
they are not being intentional, this can also be instructive, giving the
audience a glimpse of their authentic disposition towards the people, groups,
issues and ideas shaping the election.
Another important characteristic to
watch for during the debates is that of cognitive complexity, which gives us
insight as to the candidates’ constructs for interpreting information and
events. Cognitively complex individuals are better equipped to synthesize more
information and to think in more abstract and organized terms than those who
are cognitively simple. As you listen to the candidates, consider the answers
that are given, are they simple or complex? Also remember that sometimes the
best answer is a simple answer, and that complexity may serve as a disguise of
the non-answer. However, in most instances, the answers to complex questions
that challenge our society are not simple, but require sound analysis from our
leaders who are willing to engage in the hard work of identifying and
correcting systemic problems.
The political season yields itself to simplicity,
but governing requires navigating complexity. Words are the currency of ideas,
and in these debates both candidates are known to trade excessively and spend
wildly. For the critical consumer of political debates, it important to spot
the counterfeits and to discern who will be the best investment, or the most
dangerous gamble, for America’s future.
No comments :
Post a Comment