Statistics of the Union

Tomorrow is Bush's penultimate State of the Union address (SOTU), and, as this ABC News/Washington Post poll (22 January, pdf) exhibits, he "faces the nation this week more unpopular than any president on the eve of a State of the Union address since Richard Nixon in 1974." Ouch. I won't wade through all the statistics here, but read the first six pages of the report for yourself.  None of America's overwhelming disapproval of Bush and his policies is shocking, but it provides an opportunity to talk about what I consider an elemental flaw in the rhetorical strategies of Bush and his fellow neocons: they misunderstand, and thus misuse, ethos. Stick with me. Understanding ethos, that dimension of persausion describing how audiences perceive speakers (writers as well), is critical because it provides audiences with tools for judging the quality of a speech's content by judging the quality of the speaker.

Modern rhetoric mainly defines ethos in terms of authority, giving paramount influence to whether or not a person is licensed to speak on a particular issue. License is generally defined as 'source credibility,' which can be gained through either knowledge or experience. This is why we trust four out of five dentists when they recommend a particular gum that cleans plaque off our teeth: they have the specific, requisite knowledge to speak on the hygienic abilities of gum. And this is why we trust convicts to 'scare' us 'straight:' they have the requisite experiences to tell us how it really is in prison. Authority-ethos is the reason we see so many expert witnesses on Law & Order. The thing to notice about authority, however, is that it is conferred on speakers by audiences. It isn't inherent in the speaker. Trusting a doctor when she gives medical advice is logical, but her authority, rhetorically speaking, ultimately comes from her patients trusting in her knowledge and experience.

Classical rhetoric is similar, though it defines credibility in different ways. Aristotle considered ethos a central component of effective persuasion, and he outlined three qualities "which inspire confidence in the orator's own character--the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof if it:" good sense, good moral character, and goodwill towards the audience. That is, audiences can tell a lot about the quality of a speech's content by whether or not the speaker seems practical, virtuous, and genuinely concerned. Later critiques of Aristotle pointed out that, though it's possible for these characteristics to be inherent in the speech and speaker, generally speaking, it is the audience who validates these qualities.

Ok, so my point is that tomorrow, as you watch the SOTU, listen for statements by Bush that don't quite get how ethos works. Bush's relentless 'trust me' line is not only wearing thin, it misses the mark by a country mile: trust cannot be demanded. It must be given by the American people, and as the above poll indicates, that isn't happening.  Bush is likely to address the 'surge' at length, and he's likely to have plenty to say about immigration, healthcare, education, and "energy security," but he has already squandered whatever authority people once granted his administration through the (mis)construction and (mis)implementation of incompetent and incomplete policies. What are the chances that he can postulate workable strategies during the eleventh hour of his presidency? And I guarantee that what he outlines won't be rooted in Aristotelian ethos. His previous SOTUs have introduced the lofty and now-obviously impractical democracy doctrine (2004 and 2005), and the bombastic but decidedly un-goodwill-ed "axis of evil" (2002).

I'll let you decide whether or not he's virtuous.

So, even though he says he isn't bothered by his low popularity, as he did on 60 Minutes (14 January), I think he should be. Because it's that popularity that imbues his position with potency. The fact that he doesn't recognize that fact is indicative of his misunderstanding of the office.

Comments

[Jack]

It dawned on me last night what the whole purpose of Bush's health care plan is a hammer for the next Republican candidate to use in the election. He has no intention of it ever passing, though he may want it to, but the purpose is greater. He knows his opponents take him as a moron and in turn he is using that to his advantage. It hit me when I was listening to a union representative speak on the issue, and that's just it--the union lobby will fight harder than anyone else to protect their benefit (which I'm not disagreeing with) and they will make certain the Democrats in the legislature do not vote for Bush's plan. And "ta-da," come election time the next Republican can say, "Hey we tried a modest and small attempt at reform and the Democrats blocked us. They aren't for health care reform they are for nationalization." And nationalization will scare a whole lot of people.

[...the milkcrate...]

Tim, Bush does indeed get another crack at the rostrum next year, heaven help us. Correction made to post.

I suspect Mark's choice of 'deform' is intentional. And rightfully so. Proposition 12 was the so-called 'tort reform' legislation that passed in Texas in 2003. Many states have similar propositions. Here, Prop 12 passed overwhelmingly, meaning that people voted in droves to have their Constitutional rights taken away from them. The right to redress injury is boldly enumerated in that document, *without limitation.* For the electorate to vote in the affirmative to a loss of rights speaks to how good Bush and the business-friendly neocons are at framing the language of debates. True conservatives and true liberals should be equally appalled.

Another related, and relatedly hypocritical, line of thought in the SOTU, and Bush's ideological proper, is the dichotomy between what he's generally referred to, cribbing from the Catholics, as "the culture of life," i.e., pro-life, and the claim he made on Tuesday that, "In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

[Tim]

Nothing like striking while the iron is hot Mark. But does this mean that your "tort deform" is also an alcohol induced typo? Also, for the record, W does get one more crack at a SOTU. Despite all of these candidates jumping the gun and announcing their run for prez now the election doesn't roll around until November of '08. Then, god willing, we'll have someone rational, like Ralph Nader, to give us some good speechifying.

[Mark]

My main annoycance with the SOTU was the standing ovation from the Republicans when Bush talked about medical malpractice tort deform. But yet he speaks later about how important our court system is and how he wants his federal judges in. What kind of crap is that? Justice is important but let's limit people's causes of action.

And changing the tax code doesn't make anyone able to afford health insurance.

How many people, really, listen to this guy without cringing? What the fuck is a "peninchula"

I offer this haiku:

dumb ass president
english is his enemy
much bullshit ensues

PS: sorry, I've been drinking.

[...the milkcrate...]

Thanks for the compliment, Marco. I appreciate it.

As to Mark's point: if we believe Aristotle, then the effective use of ethos in public sphere communication is an external manifestation of some genuine internal divinity. Rousseau would later call it an "inner light," others refer to it as 'the spark of life.' If the speech is good, then the speaker must be ethically good.

To be fair, claiming to have that ethic when in fact dissembling--faking ethos--didn't bother Aristotle, but his concern was ultimately aesthetic.

As I suggested in the post proper, I tend to follow the contemporary definitions of ethos which suggest that ethos is a transactional rhetorical strategy: speakers attempt to prove their credibility, and audiences judge whether or not to validate it. Clearly, we the people have chosen not to accept Bush's claims to ethos, or, frankly, his claims to ethics.

And even if God did give him his mandate, the mechanism for granting it was via the ballotbox, right? So, once the voters withdraw that support, any divinity allegedly evinced in Bush's leadership must then wither. Of course, most people would agree that Bush's heavenly mandate is strongest in his own head.

There is a longstanding tradition, however, of equating rulers (generally monarchs) with God. If the king is bad, then, it is a sign of God's disfavor towards the body politic.

Or it could be that Bush just wasn't cut out to be the POTUS.

[Mark]

How can he every worry about his low popularity? He was unpopular in 2004 and still won?

Besides, he doesn't think the voting public gave him his mandate; GOD did.

And because he feels that way, he will always assume, expect, and demand that the American public trust him.

[Marco]

You are on a roll sir. The posts have been thought provoking and interesting. I'm definitely bookmarking your blog.

By the way, you might be interested to know that Ezra Ball has tagged you...

http://www.realfake.org/blog/