Did It Work?

In the aftermath of President Obama's announcement that combat operations in Iraq had ended, some commentators began to discuss the war itself. Those attempting to defend the war, its inception and its conduct, offered three reasons why invading Iraq was a good thing, why the war achieved some positive objective, and why therefore Bush deserves credit, more than Obama was willing to give him.

We need to note that the arguments shift all over the place, as if they can't keep track of which stasis they're in. So let's identify them:

A. The war in Iraq was a good thing. The key word here is "good" - that tells us we're in a Values (present tense) argument.

B. The reasons we went to war were valid. The key words are "reasons" and "were" - Cause and past tense. Note that Cause argument is used to validate (justify) the Values argument. This holds true for both sides, by the way. Those who argue the war was bad often point out that the reasons for the war were invalid. While there is a relationship between the two, one does not necessarily depend on the other. That is, even if the reasons were bad (or good) - Cause - the result - the Value - might be good (or bad).

That's the argument the Bush supporters fall back on when they begin to lose the Cause argument.

The Values argument has several components, often derived from the Cause arguments and usually posed as a rhetorical question. A typical fall back: "Isn't the world safer with Saddam Hussein?"

C. The Surge worked. The key word here is the active past tense verb. That indicates Fact, also past tense. Notice the connecting logic: The Surge worked (Fact) therefore the war achieved a goal (Fact) therefore the was was good - the right thing to do (Value). Now if in fact the Surge worked, a goal was in fact achieved. But whether that goal was good, or whether, even the goal achieved by the Surge was good, the war itself was good, is another matter.

Let's begin with the Cause arguments (B). Why did we go to war? There were several reasons, each based on assertions about Facts. Rachel Maddow does a good job of listing and debunking the sequence of reasons. (See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDCboLKk-p4 or here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/)

To summarize:

1. Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda (the 9/11 Excuse)

2. Saddam was about to develop weapons of mass destruction (the Smoking Mushroom Excuse)

3. Saddam was a dictator (the Convenient Moral Imperative Excuse)

4. We needed to bring democracy to the world, starting with Iraq (the History Doesn't Matter Excuse)

Now others accused Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld of having other motives, such as taking control of Iraq's oil preserves (Greg Palast in Armed Madhouse) or pursuing disaster capitalism, aka, corporatism (Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine).

If we shift the frame - expand it, for instance, to include the other possibilities, or narrow it to exclude one of the four offered - we may still be in the stasis of Cause - WHY did Bush & Cheney lead the country into the Iraq war? However, even if we stay in the stasis of Cause, there are several places of contention: Whose war was it? Did the country accept it knowingly? In other words, was there full disclosure or was there fraud? (The analogy to a suit in civil (or even criminal) court is not coincidental.)

From the frame (perspective) of Palast, Klein and others, the answer is no. But the Cause stases advanced by the advocates leaves the question open - or rather, forces it into the stasis of Fact. The question becomes not "Did Saddam have ties to Al-Qaeda" or "Was Saddam about to develop WMDs" - we know now the answer to both was no. The question becomes, what did those who urged (Bush/Cheney, et.al) and approved (Congress) know? Did they know the same thing? What kind of factual proof is Congress's acquiescence?

As long as the advocates can switch from Fact to Cause and back again, the argument cannot be settled in either stasis. But if it is about to be settled - if the argument can be confined, for the purposes of the argument, to one stasis long enough to come to a resolution, the advocates can switch to another stasis - Values.

This is argument B4 and C. They are often combined, because (CAUSE!) the so-called Surge is offered as fact (evidence) of the motive (Cause). The argument runs: Because the surge worked (FACT) - the Iraqis had an election and sectarian violence went down - therefore our reason for invading Iraq (CAUSE) - to bring democracy to the dictatorship - was good and right (VALUE). This has an implied conclusion or place in the stasis of POLICY - pursue the same policy next time, and to do so one must vote Republican. But that implication is rarely voiced, so let's set it aside.

If you're familiar with fallacies, Rhetorical Fouls, as Jay Heinrichs calls them, you'll recognize them operating here. First, if the action was good (VALUE) then its success or failure (FACT) does not determine its value, or goodness. Had the surge failed, if the motive had been to bring peace and freedom to Iraq, the action would still have been good. On the other hand, had the motive been to seize control of Iraqi oil assets, then even had the surge succeeded, the motive would have been bad.

I should also note that whether or not the so-called "Surge" succeeded depends on the stasis of Definition. The "facts" are generally agreed upon: there was sectarian violence and no political movement. More U.S. troops went in and the violence went down and an election was held. But, did the Surge cause the decline and election? Or do we have either a Post Hoc or Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After, or With, therefore Because)? These are Causal fallacies, but we would first have to Define what is meant by "success" before saying the Surge succeeded. Does success have to be causative, or can it be coincidental? (Another point here: the term "surge" is metaphorical, and as it is a linguistic rhetorical device, probably can also be analyzed in the stasis of Definition - was it a "surge" or a "drip," for instance?)

Finally, we come to A, the core Values argument. This takes one of three forms, all posed at some point in the discussion as a rhetorical question:

Is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam?

Is the U.S. better off now that Saddam is dead and gone?

Is the world safer now that the U.S. invaded Iraq and removed Saddam?

(Notice that these are all support the B3 Cause argument - Because Saddam was bad, it's good for Iraq or the U.S. or the World or all three that he is gone. Again, although the war's advocates try to conflate Cause and Value, they are not interchangeable: the result may be good, but the motive not - or vice-versa. Unintended Consequences do not transform a Bad Cause into a Good Value. The Value may be good, but the Cause remains bad.)

Even so, those questions are not so easy to answer. We have to revert to definition: What is meant by "better off"? What is meant by "safer"? Things might be "better" or "safer" in one way, but worse or more dangerous in another. And how do we measure the two?

As you can see, the questions are more complex than talking heads often allow. While those advocating may not want you doing this kind of analysis, forcing those presenting arguments to clarify, via stasis, what they're saying makes it easier to identify the argument, and judge its strength.

Deliberative Dilemma

Major Presidential speeches, or announcements, provide plenty of material for rhetorical analysis. President Obama's announcement that "combat operations in Iraq" have ended is no exception. As such, we might focus on many areas - the symbolism of the location, certain word choices - for instance, while "combat operations" have ended, military engagements - street fights and gun battles - have not. So we might focus on issues of definition. There are, of course, many others.

But one that seems to have escaped most commentators is what I'll call the "deliberative dilemma." According to Aristotle, there are three core issues - blame, values, or choice. They're known as forensic (who did it), epideictic - demonstrative (what good is it), and deliberative (what should we do). Later rhetoricians developed this into stasis theory, adding two other places of argument, cause and definition.

Good rhetoric, or powerful rhetoric, may combine all three issues, but one predominates. JFK's speech declaring the U.S. will put a man on the moon is deliberative. Eisenhower's farewell address is best known for its forensic assessment of the military-industrial complex. But we may argue that the deliberative forms the heart of any presidential address. I say this because the president represents the country as a whole. While the president cannot be divorced from his party or its politics, he still stands and speaks for the country as a whole. (Whether this makes him a metonymy, a synechdoche, or both, is a subject for another essay.)

The purpose of a presidential speech, then, is to bring the country together, to define our values, to express ideas that unite us and voice sentiments that motivate us. In short, the president is both cheerleader and sermonizer in chief. Before and after the speech his words are analyzed and criticized, but much of that criticism turns on how well he demonstrated the group's values - whether a sub-group of the country, or the country as a group of the whole.

This brings us to President Obama's deliberative dilemma of August 31, 2010. Let's start by focusing on the criticism: those on the left complained that Obama did not discuss the causes of the Iraq War, that he did not blame Bush and Cheney for the misinformation and lies that led us into the war, nor did he deal with the consequences in any detail. (Rachel Maddow provides a wonderful summary of the changing rationale.) Those on the right were upset that Obama did not give Bush enough credit for what they see as a positive outcome or noble motives; many mentioned specifically the "Surge," as if that was a battle that guaranteed victory.

We may call that forensic divide "fact 1" (with a nod to Sherlock Holmes). (Notice that both sides have focused on the blame/credit question.)

Fact 2: It is an election year, and the politics of Iraq have a direct impact on the politics of the economy, which will probably have a direct impact on the election, which will in turn affect President Obama's agenda and ability to lead.

Fact 3: The Iraq war not only divides the country, as did, say the Vietnam war, it also serves as a flashpoint for deep-seated and conflicting ideologies. These ideologies spring from core values, values that answer questions like, what is the nature of the country; what is our role in the world; who are our enemies, why are they our enemies, and how do we fight them. These values - beliefs, really - are almost intransigent and practically unarguable.

Fact 4: Barack Obama favors rhetorical, political and intellectual balance. It's visible in his style, his vision, and his speeches. Consider some phrases from his famous, and powerful, "More Perfect Union" speech: "Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots" "through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience" and finally, perhaps the best known line: "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas."

Fact 5: Barack Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. His most vocal supporters vehemently loathe it. But summarily pulling out carries political consequences, at home and abroad. Further, independents are the most important segment of the electorate. Going back to Fact 2, Obama must be aware of his audience, and his rhetorical goal. His rhetorical goal is not simply to announce that the "combat troops" are leaving Iraq, and that in a little more than a year all troops will be out of Iraq. Nor is his rhetorical goal forensic - dealing with the "elephant in the room" - the blame (or credit) for the Iraq War. He leaves that to the analysts.

Rather, his rhetorical goal is to focus on the issues - or issue - that will define the election and to demonstrate his competence in handling it: "
Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work." So he wants to - or must - use the rhetorical moment - the Kairos of the "end of our combat mission in Iraq" - to define the issues and enhance his ethos (reinforce his credibility).

Ah, but enhance his ethos with who? Certainly not with the say-nothing, do-nothing (know-nothing) Republicans who have opposed every attempt at conversation. Nor with the Democratic party, although he must be careful with the progressives. He must present himself as favoring their views, but constrained by politics (or "reality") into modifying actions. (This becomes clearer if we understand the nature of audience - again, a subject for another essay).

Rather, his audience, the one he needs to persuade, are the independents - the middle balancers. And for them, the demonstrative must yield to the deliberative - where are we going and why.

Hence the acknowledgment of the past that frustrated his supporters and gave umbrage to his opponents. Obama stands balanced and those without a political stake - the independents - will see him, hopefully, as deliberative and full of phronesis, or practical wisdom.

And hence, the "theme" of the speech: "It is time to turn the page."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/31/remarks-president-address-nation-end-combat-operations-iraq

Kairos and Katrina

Five years ago, on this date and at this time, I was on the I-10 between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, along with several hundred thousand others, evacuating - fleeing - before Hurricane Katrina. Five years later, today, New Orleans is awash (intentional pun) with politicians and pundits, memorials and tributes, retrospectives, reports and stories. Katrina is being remembered and analyzed. Every media has an angle - Film, TV, Music, Poetry, Fiction, Memoir, History, Graphic Novels. Etc. You can find everything from the too-personal to the too critical.

All of this demonstrates the rhetorical power of Kairos, as well as the importance of demonstrative rhetoric.

Kairos is a Greek word that roughly means the circumstances of a situation. Kairos is relevant time, as opposed to Chronos which is linear time. "In Roman rhetoric, the Latin word opportunitas was used in a similar manner; its root port- means an opening, and from it we get English verbs such as import and export. ... Kairos is thus a "window" of time during which action is most advantageous" (Ancient Rhetorics for Classical Students, p. 37). It's not a quantity of time (Chronos) - a day, a month, a year - though it has a quantity of time; rather, Kairos is a quality of time.

Aside from "a window of opportunity" we also use the commonplace "seize the moment" to describe Kairos. Another word we use to describe the concept of Kairos is "occasion" - as in, it's the right occasion.

(For a succinct, useful definition, see http://rhetoric.byu.edu/ and search under Kairos.)

These concepts - opportunity, occasion, moment - Kairos - imply place as well as time. The occasion or opportunity is as much a matter of where as when. Coming back to Katrina, for example, there's a reason why Brian Williams of NBC News or President Obama came to New Orleans itself to commemorate the five year "anniversary" of the hurricane. Timing is about place - what works in one location (a stand-up comic's routine in a comedy club) fails in another (a memorial service or even a sporting event). In this example, the comic is still funny (hopefully), but his timing is off - not the timing of his jokes, but his Kairos-time.

Space and time, as Einstein pointed out, are inter-related. Kairos works along the time-space continuum. In this sense, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address can be seen as a 268 word exercise is Kairos. Or just the most famous exemplum of it.

So it's not nostalgia, overkill, or anything else but good timing - Kairos - that so much Katrina is happening in New Orleans on August 29th.

You might ask, though, why is this Kairos different than all other Kairos? Certainly, the one year "anniversary" of Katrina was a big deal. (I put "anniversary" in quotes because while the word literally means "the date on which an event took place in a previous year," we tend to associate it with something happy or positive. So the quotation marks call attention to the word, and give us a different rhetorical perspective. I hope.)

But the fifth year is certainly a bigger deal than the fourth year. No doubt the sixth year will not be as big a deal as the fifth, but the tenth will.

That's because Kairos-time, like Chronos-time, is tied to cycles, and these cycles are tied to rhythms or structures of human perception. (Five - five fingers, five senses.) For this reason, Kairos is not just "seizing the moment," the present moment, it's also seizing the moment, again - making the past present. Through Kairos, we recognize a renewed relevance.

In our case, Katrina was relevant, lost its relevance, then regained it, but in a different form. Even when the text is the same - the levees, for example - the context has changed - the Kairos of the levees now (relevant again, at least for the moment) is very different than the Kairos of the levees five, four, three or two years ago. Or one.

One final point: Kairos is closely associated with demonstrative rhetoric, arguments of the present, of values, of identity. If you look carefully, that is, rhetorically, at the narratives, speeches and orations, at the outlines and framing of issues (economic opportunity (!), infrastructure, wetlands, etc.) presented today in New Orleans, and in the week(s) before as prelude and the week(s) after as epilogue, you'll see that all (almost all) emerge from an underlying stasis (place of discussion). And that underlying stasis is an assertion of the value and values of New Orleans, of its identity. (In this sense, Kairos gives us key words, but that's a topic for another discussion.)

And now, I will indulge in some Kairos, and consider and commemorate, reflect and remember, the Chronos of Katrina.

A Distraction Fallacy

(click the picture to enlarge)

Cute, right? But while rhetorically true - the best argument defense is a good argument offense, Drabble wins the argument (for now) because he committed three rhetorical fallacies, which his wife did not catch.

Fallacy one: The Red Herring.

Known in Latin as "Ignoratio Elenchi" or "ignorance of refutation" (perhaps refutation through ignorance gets the sense better).

This the fallacy of distraction, at its best. It works by introducing something irrelevant, basing the conclusion on the irrelevancy. When an argument gets off topic, odds are someone's thrown a red herring across the trail. (The term "red herring" apparently comes from fox hunting, in which "a dried smoked herring" is dragged across the fox's trail to throw the hounds off the scent.)

In this case, Drabble is in trouble with his wife, and wants to distract her. Actually, Drabble's wife (I think she's only called "Honeybunch" in the comic) has committed the first fallacy. Her question commits the fallacy of a "loaded question," defined as follows: "A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition." (Definitions are from fallacyfiles.org.)

The most famous "loaded question," at least as an example, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This requires a yes or no answer, either of which implies something negative.

Honeybunch's question puts Ralph Drabble in a tight spot. He can't answer honestly (because she's good looking), so he has to use a red herring, a distraction, to get out of trouble.

It's important to note that a loaded question doesn't itself make an argument; so it can't make a fallacious one. "Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend." Or in this case, to admit something that would be uncomfortable, embarrassing or get him in trouble.

So to get out of trouble, Drabble employs a "red herring," distracting his wife. A Red Herring is also known as a Smoke Screen or a Wild Goose Chase. It works by introducing an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from the original issue. You "win" when you've distracted your opponent or the audience, diverting their attention from the original argument and onto another topic. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Fallacy two: Redefinition

Redefinition is not always a fallacy. Sometimes it helps us use terms more precisely. Sometimes it helps us sharpen the focus of our logic, or the argument itself. But when it's used to confuse the audience or to cloud the issue, then it's a fallacy. Redefinition is a subcategory of Equivocation, which is itself a subcategory of Ambiguity - all fallacies of language, as opposed to fallacies of reasoning.

Note that Drabble redefines the job by making it seem more important. He elevates the status, making the work, and the person performing it, more abstract. That's what he wants, of course. A weather girl has attributes not connected with reporting the weather. A meteorologist has a position of importance.

Used to obscure or homogenize, this kind of rhetorical moves goes from being an amusing fallacy to a deliberate deception. It's the stuff of euphemisms, a topic for a different post.

The person remains the same. Drabble's perception probably remains the same. And Honeybunch's question remains as relevant as when first asked.

So to "win," Drabble needs the third fallacy, the one that shifts the blame from himself to her.

Fallacy three: Ad Hominem Abusive or Personal Attack

Ralph Drabble concludes by attacking his wife's choice of words, saying, "How dare you call her a weather girl! That's demeaning!" This fits the definition of the Ad Hominem Abusive fallacy: A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims." (see the nizkor.org/features/fallacies site; see also: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html)

Drabble claims that his wife is insulting the "meteorologist." When she admits to that, her question is "defeated" - no longer a topic of discussion. Of course, she's ignored the fact that Drabble has committed the same fallacy of which he accuses her: He says she's committed an Ad Hominem Abusive, when he's the one who's done that.

Of course, if Honeybunch knew anything about logic and fallacies, Ralph would have to be more careful with his expressions.

But then, it wouldn't be a comic strip and we wouldn't have had an exercise in Just Rhetoric.

Anemic Analogy, Take Two

Rhetorically, the non-Ground Zero, non-Mosque, non-controversy furnishes rich ground on which to build our understanding of how argument works. We therefore return to it to till the soil and see what grain (of truth) it produces.

Let's start with the name: The "Ground Zero Mosque." At the stasis of fact, this simply isn't true. What's being built, or proposed, is an Islamic Cultural Center, equivalent to a YMCA or a JCC. And it's supposed to be built two blocks from Ground Zero, hidden behind several taller buildings.

But labeling, or commonplaces, serve to "bumper sticker" an argument, reducing it to a catch phrase that frames the debate, frames it in a way that often excludes relevant facts or issues. (There's a website devoted to framing, frameshop. George Lakoff and Frank Luntz, from widely different perspectives, have written about it. Perhaps the most accessible summary is in Thank You For Arguing, p, 101-107.)

The controversy also highlights that, in argument, the present usually beats the future. That is, when one side uses demonstrative arguments - language about values and the group's identity - and the other side uses deliberative argument - language about policy or choices - the argument will usually settle in the demonstrative. Call it the rhetorical path of least resistance. Here, too, a relatively unimportant issue has trumped, at least in much of the media, discussions of the economy, for instance.

Even when both sides frame their arguments in the demonstrative, the present tense appeal to values, we can see how unproductive such an argument can be when the fact and placement of the argument aren't recognized. We've seen it in the framing of the abortion debate. We see it here: sanctity and sensitivity on the one side, equality under the law and freedom of religion on the other. At one level, what we see in conflict are inarguable beliefs. At the stasis of value, then, this argument is a lose-lose. The argument must be moved down a level, into a different stasis - fact or definition.

The issue also furnishes an opportunity to observe what doesn't work, to weed out the fallacies and remove the stones from the soil of argument.

And so I return to one of the most powerful tools of rhetoric, and its misuse (not abuse) by Charles Krauthammer, an otherwise careful reasoner of conservative values. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904769.html

His argument asserts the following, to which almost all would agree:

Radical Islam is bad

Radical Islamists destroyed the Twin Tower at Ground Zero

Ground Zero is hallowed ground - sacred because of what it represents to Americans (and not just Americans)

Then comes his conclusion: Therefore, any monument to Islam "in this place is not just insensitive but provocative."

To get to his conclusion, Krauthammer makes the following assumptions:

The Islamic Cultural Center is a "monument to Islam." Or primarily a mosque.

That, although "Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam" (constituting 7 percent), because it is "a very powerful strain," any acknowledgment or legitimization of Islam itself, within any Ground Zero context, is "insensitive and provocative."

The Islamic Cultural Center is being built at Ground Zero, or in such close proximity as to be "at" Ground Zero.

The objection claims the same moral imperative as did the objection to a convent at Auschwitz or would a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor. Hence his title, "Moral Myopia."

Much is rhetorically wrong with the above points.

1. To also argue from analogy, if an Islamic Cultural Center is a "monument to Islam," than a YMCA (or YWCA) is a monument to Christianity and a JCC a monument to Judaism. Would Krauthammer agree to that definition? More to the point, would either organization agree to having itself defined that way? (As a side note, if there is a mosque in the Pentagon, which was subjected to the same attack on 9/11, why cannot there be a mosque near Ground Zero? What is the difference between the locations? Is it that one is functional and the other hallowed?)

2. Krauthammer admits it is wrong to equate radical Islam with all of Islam (just as it would be wrong to equate all of Christianity with say, the Ku Klux Klan). But by claiming an Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero is "insensitive," he does just that. More telling is another false equivalency: The Islamic Cultural Center is being built by Americans, for Americans. This point bears repeated emphasis: The Islamic Cultural Center is being built by Americans, for Americans. Who happen to be Muslims.

(There is a subtext to Krauthammer's argument, not subtle at all: "radical Islam...is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert...and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world." In other words, the controversy has more to do with the perception of Islam in the West, the role of radical Islam within the Islamic world, United States foreign policy (which surely has an effect on the growth or removal of radicalism of any kind), etc. But the only way for this subtext to enter the argument is to do what Krauthammer says he is not doing - equate radical Islam with all of Islam.)

3. The question of location needs to be addressed. Again. What distance is appropriate, and why? What buildings can or should be built in proximity (how much proximity) and why? For example, why is a strip club, within the same proximity, less insensitive and less provocative?

4. The rhetorical basis of Krauthammer's argument, the "moral myopia" he claims proponents have, rests on a false analogy. I analyzed this last time, but Krauthammer returns to it, trying to justify it by extending it.

In order to see the fallacy, we need to first see the argument made clear.

"The Atlantic's Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the Ground Zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery." Krauthammer takes umbrage at this false dilemma, and, rhetorically speaking, rightfully so. There are other alternatives, within the realm of demonstrative and deliberative rhetoric (though not forensic, or fact-based). I've mentioned or alluded to these above. (These reasons may be refutable without making them bigoted or demagogic.)

But then he allows a rhetorical question to make his argument, always a dangerous strategy. "Well, then, what about Pope John Paul II's ordering the closing of Carmelite convent at Auschwitz? Surely there can be no one more innocent of that crime [the Holocaust] than those devout nuns." Actually, given the complicity of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust, and the nature of the prayers of the nun, this "remarkable demonstration of sensitivity, this order to pray - but not there" cannot be compared to the "sensitivity" issue touted regarding the Islamic Cultural Center.

(Of course, the convent was moved only after intense pressure, not as a demonstration of sensitivity, but let that be.)

Auschwitz was, and symbolizes, the culmination of centuries of virulent, pathological anti-Semitism. It embodied on a secular level a religious doctrine central to most of Christianity for most of its existence, and central to the Catholic Church at least a generation past the Holocaust, and perhaps beyond that: Jews are damned, Judaism is a sin, and the sooner both are destroyed, one way or the other, the better.

In such a context, the prayer is offensive.

To make the comparison work, Krauthammer would have to argue that Muslim-Americans believe in the destruction of the United States, that Muslim-Americans oppose the existence of our Constitutional form of government, and that Muslim-Americans supported and participated in the attacks of 9/11. Krauthammer doesn't believe that. He clings to the analogy from his previous article, but drops it in favor of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

It's a better attempt historically. One might argue, for instance, that not all Japanese supported the war against America, but the radical Imperialists were such a "very powerful strain" that they dominated the thinking, policy, and identity of Japan as a whole.

But this analogy, too, fails. First, Krauthammer's words:

"He [Richard Cohen of the Washington Post] concedes that putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive, but then dismisses the analogy to Ground Zero because 9/11 was merely "a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai." Krauthammer then berates Cohen for "obtuseness," arguing that the 9/11 terrorists were "the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists."

Concede this is so. What is the connection to the Islamic cultural center two blocks, and invisible, from Ground Zero? To use analogy in a reductio ad absurdum, will Krauthammer also argue that the strip club, in an equivalent location, memorializes "the leading, and most successful edge of a worldwide movement" to degrade and brutalize women?

Here is Krauthammer's conclusion, his triumphant argument by analogy: Just as the people of Japan today would not think of planting their flag at Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that no Japanese under the age of 85 has any responsibility for that infamy, representatives of contemporary Islam - the overwhelming majority of whose adherents are equally innocent of the infamy committed on 9/11 in their name - should exercise comparable respect..."

Let us make the analogy precise: Just as no Japanese Americans today would think of celebrating their history and culture on the island of Oahu, despite the fact that none of them has any responsibility for the infamy of Pearl Harbor committed in the name of Imperial Japan, so too...

Analogy is a wonderful rhetorical tool. Sensitivity is a legitimate Values issue. Concern how we respond to radical Islam deserves careful consideration, within the stasis of Policy. But discomfort is not a demonstrative argument, analogies must be precise, and we should spend our deliberative energies on substantive, not symbolic, choices.

The Illegal Welfare Mosque

When beginning a rhetorical analysis, perhaps the first two questions to ask are: "Why now?" and "Who benefits?" In rhetorical terms, we are asking, what's the Kairos and Cui Bono - Greek for timing (as opposed to Kronos, which is time) and Latin for who benefits.

The controversy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (it's neither) provides a case in point. If we ask "why now" and "who benefits" it becomes clear why the proposed Islamic Cultural Center to be built two blocks from Ground Zero, in an old Burlington coat factory, has become the latest wedge issue. Why now - it's election season. Who benefits - those whose election depends on demonstrative, what Jay Heinrichs calls tribal, rhetoric.

The issue has been defined as a clash between "sensitivity" on the right and "freedom of religion" on the left. Notice that "sensitivity" here has a religious connotation. (Actually, it has another connotation, but that will be discussed later.) Ground Zero is "hallowed" ground. The terrorists were Muslims, so it is insensitive for Muslims to build near Ground Zero. This is a fallacy, of course, but a powerful emotional appeal. It relies on what we might call stereotyping by association.

Stereotyping is a powerful tactic because it combines pathos - argument by feeling - and demonstrative argument - the stasis of values. Values arguments are primal and emotional. And stereotyping appeals to both patriotism and anger, two of the primary tools of pathos. It's the same kind of appeal that gets sports fans riled up. Make a claim about someone's team, and watch the passion rise - even if the claim is true.

Demonstrative argument thrives when it divides. It categorizes issues, or people, into us vs. them. Circle the wagons, the cavalry is on the way! When the group is threatened, patriotism - loyalty - and anger take center stage, and reason and deliberation are irrelevant, dangerous, and to be mocked.

In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque that isn't, those wanting to build it can't be attacked directly because, although Muslims, they are American citizens. But they can be attacked indirectly, and by association. They can be attacked by code-words (they are "insensitive" - meaning, in part, they want something they shouldn't want).

Who benefits? Those who gain when a group gets patriotic and angry - when a group becomes moved to action. (Only emotions get us to move.) So, who are those who will get patriotic and angry at Moslems, any Moslems? Who are those who benefit from evoking the memory of 9/11? Who benefits from dividing and conquering, politically? Who benefits from distracting citizens from real problems, economic problems, and their causes?

Well, who is it that's protesting the Ground Zero Mosque that isn't?

What's rhetorically interesting is that this is the same tactic Rachel Maddow recently exposed in her segment about Republicans using race to scare (fear leads to patriotism and anger, which frames all argument as demonstrative, us vs. them) white voters. Blacks are out to get your money. Or whatever.

It's not a new strategy. It's the Nixonian Southern Strategy. It's the non-existent Welfare Queen, or Black Drug Dealer stereotype. It's the boogeyman - band together, circle the wagons, elect me your leader to protect you because THEY are attacking your VALUES.

It's also the rhetorical strategy behind the illegal immigrant shoutfests.

All these stereotypes - Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims - are caricatured and scapegoated and villified, in order to make "the group" more cohesive, more passionate, more active.

This is not to denigrate Demonstrative rhetoric. We need it. We can't have a group identity without it. and we can't get to Deliberative rhetoric - policy, what should we do - without the values that tell us why.

But like any tool or form of rhetoric, Demonstrative rhetoric can be used for good or ill.

To see which it is, Kairos and Cui Bono.

And watch out for those Illegal Welfare Mosques

Anemic Analogy

Analogy is one of the most common and most powerful forms of argument. When we compare one thing with another, if the elements we're comparing match, it not only clarifies the claim, it convinces the audience, because the unknown, or element in question, fits into the known, the category already known.

It's also very easy to fudge an analogy, because sometimes two things seem to belong to the same category, but don't really. Or there's another factor that makes the comparison not quite so valid. A False Analogy is a specific type of rhetorical fallacy, but often analogies fail not because the author is trying to make a false comparison, but because there's an inherent flaw in the analogy the author doesn't see.

The argument against the "Two Blocks from Ground Zero Mosque" serves as a perfect example. Charles Krauthammer, in his "Move On: No mosque at Ground Zero" article, argues that the Islamic Culture Center (akin to a YMCA or JCC) should not be built two blocks from Ground Zero. He offers three reasons: Analogy to Disrespect (or Sacrilege), Motive (of the builder or the sanctioner), and Propriety - which is also based on analogy.

This last is the weakest: "America is a free country where you can build whatever you want - but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school..." In what way, we may ask, is a cultural center - or a mosque - similar to a liquor store?

The argument against Motive argues that Mayor Bloomberg's reason for supporting the building project is weak. Maybe, but that doesn't address the issue of the propriety of constructing a building that will contain a swimming pool and a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. All it says is that Bloomberg may be supporting it for the wrong reason, not that the project is bad. The follow-up ad hominem against the actual builder, that his building might be the venue for some anti-American rant, is pure speculation.

That leaves the Analogy. Krauthammer claims that as a Billboard is the Gettysburg and a convent is to Auschwitz, so a mosque is to Ground Zero. In other words, commercializing the paradigm of the Civil War or - well, is it necessary to say a convent at Auschwitz is offensive?

But Krauthammer's analogy fails in two ways. First, it equates all Moslems with the murderers of 9/11. But Moslems also died in the Twin Towers. So if Moslem Americans have no place at Ground Zero, are we to say that Confederate soldiers have no place at Gettysburg?

The analogy fails even more so, on the very basis Krauthammers rests it: location. Neither advertising nor convents are inherently bad; neither, Krauthammer, concedes, is a mosque or Islamic culture center. The problem - the sacrilege - arises when these (or something else) are place inappropriately, demeaning or trivializing "hallowed ground."

But how far away is far enough? A billboard advertising fast foods can be a mile away from Gettysburg, and still be inappropriately placed, because it's visible. A convent can be a hundred yards from Auschwitz, and not be inappropriate, because it is hidden and inaccessible from the camp.

Since the Islamic Cultural Center will not be visible from Ground Zero, and will not present an "alternative attraction," given the geography of Manhattan, the former Burlington coat factory (proposed site) is not itself "hallowed ground," and will not infringe on whatever will be built at Ground Zero.

One last argument might be made: Knowing such a facility is nearby offends the sensibilities. Does this mean, by analogy, that knowing a fast food joint is on the road to Gettysburg also offends the sensibilities? Alternatively, knowing that an Islamic Cultural Center (or mosque) was going to be built near Ground Zero, does not its subsequent existence anywhere offend the sensibilities?

Only if one argues by the fallacies of prejudice and stereotype.

Zero Grounds

The debate over the "Ground Zero Mosque" demonstrates how values determine policy. Or, to put this in more technical, but not incomprehensible, rhetorical terms: the present tense frames the future.

The "anti-mosque" argument can be dismissed as bigotry. And at the extreme, a strong case can be made that it's part of a rather rancid form of stereotyping. Jon Stewart makes the point that protesting mosques is not confined to the "hallowed ground" issue of Ground Zero. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update) The "anti-mosque" argument also suffers from inaccuracy: What's being built is a "cultural center," more akin to a YMCA or JCC than a house of worship. And it's being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero; in Manhattan a couple blocks may be like a different city.

Still, to dismiss the sentiments of those with misgivings as simply intolerant is to commit the same kind of over-generalizing that serves as grist for Stewart's satirical mill and fuel for the ire of righteous (self or otherwise) liberals. (Debunking the exploiters of those sentiments is something different.)

At the heart of the conflict over the "not Ground Zero Islamic Cultural Center that has a mosque in it" is a conflict over two fundamental values: sensitivity and tolerance. It seems odd that these two values would be in conflict, but the two terms, at least as used here, express oppositional values. The conservative position, advanced perhaps most cogently by Charles Krauthammer, is that building a mosque-like structure near Ground Zero is insensitive to what is sacred and ought to be hallowed. The liberal position, advanced rather obliquely by Jon Stewart, is that allowing mosque-ish structure near Ground Zero typifies our best principles, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

(Ironically, both might point to Lincoln for support: "...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. ... With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in.")

Note that both express their positions in values-heavy language, implying or declaring that building or not building is a moral, indeed, a spiritual imperative. Krauthammer uses words like "miraculous," "transcendent," "sacrifice," "suffering of the innocent." Stewart, after a series of clips that demonstrate (!) a pattern of intolerance, concludes with Newt Gingrich's inadvertent ad hominem, and then delivers an ironic rhetorical question: Why should we have higher standards of religious freedom than Saudi Arabia?

Krauthammer's position is exclusive, Stewart's inclusive. From a rhetorical perspective, both can be justified. The conservative position sets off the sacred and protects the past; the liberal position expands the moral imperative, the Golden Rule.

I point this out since if this argument was fact-based (forensic, in rhetorical terms), there would be no argument. Krauthammer argues that "hallowed ground ... belongs to those who suffered and died there - and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated."

I think Stewart would agree, both to the definition and its application to Ground Zero. And also that "location matters." But the latter begs the question, which Stewart skewers, how far from Ground Zero is far enough? Or, to turn Krauthammer's seemingly convincing but actually weak analogy around - at what proximity does a commercial tower trivialize Gettysburg?

In other words, if the argument was fact based, then the decision to build or not build the mosque would consider questions like: what other buildings are in the same radius (a "gentleman's club" for one), how does the proposed cultural center compare to those institutions, and how, if at all, will it impact the construction, the view or the significance of a Ground Zero memorial?

But those questions are amenable to rational analysis. Values based arguments, group or "tribal" rhetoric, is not. "We must preserve the sacredness of Ground Zero." "We must honor the principle of religious freedom." These are not merely emotional battle cries; they assert (group) affiliation and define (one's) identity.

Is it possible to come to some consensus or compromise when values clash? Can demonstrative arguments lead to anything other than rhetorical riots? Not always, but yes, sometimes - yet only if the values themselves are recognized, acknowledged and put in the proper frame or perspective.