Trending
When I hear someone say they are 'fighting for me,’ the first thing I think is well, that's great, finally! But rather than taking the statement in a strict, literal sense, I might first consider who the source is and what is really going on: it's eliciting an emotional response, which is the point. It DOES feel good to have protection against an enemy. Hooray!
But look at the same phraseology during a heated election season, and upon closer examination you might come to a different conclusion. Let's look at how messaging -- both positive and negative--is currently flying like the proverbial debris from an exploding fan.
As a lover of language and how it can be used persuasively, I enjoy the challenge to dissect and examine. There is so much more than meets the eye, or in this case, the ear.
Think about the aforementioned "fighting for you." Fight itself is a war metaphor, eliciting feelings of fear, anger and solidarity. Furthermore, it implies that the voters , (you and I) need protection against an enemy. The candidate/politician takes the elevated role as protector, (only possible if we elect him or her.) It's so much stronger than simply saying "Together we can build a better community." And politicians from both sides of the aisle and at all levels of government repeat this phrase.
Now consider "I will protect you." Who doesn't want to be protected? To protect someone implies an inherent threat is present. Here again, the politician is the guardian, and the voter, in turn, is dependent upon the guardian, whether that "protection" is connected to our children, crime, guns, social security, jobs or national security.
Loss is another powerful motivator. Consider the familiar tropes "Giving power back to the people" or "Taking our country back." Both imply that the people once possessed that power--and the country--and that someone has taken it away, usually someone from the opposing party. The politician casts himself as the savior, promising to undo the other party's bad behavior and restore what rightfully belongs to the people. But if the government, through misguided laws or poor leadership, took that power away in the first place, who is really responsible? Another example of the inmates running the asylum? Maybe.
Let's continue down the twisted trail of political framing or double speak with another example.
Who doesn't agree with "common-sense legislation?" Isn't common sense completely non-political? Who would oppose it? The interesting psychological part is common sense doesn't merely describe the proposal but implicitly describes the person who agrees with it. Here there is no need to say, "people who disagree with me are stupid." This expression is useful because is disguises a political judgment as a statement of fact. And it's neither conservative nor liberal, Republican and Democratic.
The language in this piece also comes with its own framing. Writing "the inmates are running the asylum" can lead one to believe that everyone in public office is a dishonest bum, or "swamp creature" if you will. The logical conclusion might be, why vote? But I don't espouse this thinking. This isn't a call for political inaction and apathy. Don't just complain about what or who you don't like, do something!
Persuasive language is present everywhere--from advertising to politics and everywhere in between. It can help us see another point of view or motivate us to act. A good grant proposal helps secure funding, and legal cases are won by arguments that persuade a judge or jury. Just know, how something is framed can be just as influential as the facts themselves.
Pat Pihl is a personal historian from Mayville.