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
1 comment:
David,
I commend you for this clever and unique view of the G-zero controversy; however, though well done I see it as another leftist propaganda ploy without consideration of realistic G-zero opposition reasoning. I do admit that many right wing opponents are sadly off the baseline with their strategy as well. Most of our leaders and media representatives display their tragic legal and historical ignorance by myopic knee-jerk chanting of the standard religious freedom mantra in defense of Islamic pressure to build a mosque on ground zero.
This is not a religious rights issue! Our Founding Fathers sought to protect this country from the ravages of persecution they knew rampant in Europe and the rest of the world. However, that freedom, afforded by the First amendment to the constitution of 1789, was specifically engineered only for those who held no threat. Their assumption and basis for the law was that religion is basically harmless and beneficial. They would never have allowed freedom to any religion that posed a threat or was composed of elements that had harmful potential or known deadly activities. It would fly in the face of common sense and sound reason to suppose, that intelligent and experienced leaders such as Jefferson and his colleagues, would, with no reservations, tolerate an antagonistic religion. This is made plain by a portion of the amendment that specifically allows only peaceable assembly the protection of the law: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,…” Peaceable is the essence of this law.
Therefore, the issue becomes not one of religious freedom or hand-wringing over party-line misguided knee-jerk accusations of hatred and bigotry, but one of responsible protection of our citizens from a powerful and influential world-wide organization that has a long history of substantial aggressive expansionism, persecution of other religions such as Christianity, and the flagrant killing, maiming, torture, and destruction witnessed by millions on television and in the print media. The #First amendment was framed when the fathers had no idea that today we'd be essentially held hostage by Islam's brazen demands! It's a Catch 22 trap. The Muslims are abusing the rights issue by forcing our leaders to blindly adhere to protection even though the Islamic religion was instrumental in the Twin Towers holocaust. If we deny their right to build their mosque, we will appear to dishonor our national heritage and promises. But if we allow them to do whatever they want in the name of religious freedom without first addressing, repudiating, and rooting out their terrorist elements, we dishonor the original constitutional intent and subject our citizens to further intrusion and possible harm from of an ideology that turns deaf ears and closes their eyes to all the destruction reeked by their radical elements.
Islam claims that they have no responsibility for the terrorists, but … (no room for this)
Politicians are painfully aware of the poignant axiom, “perception is reality”; therefore we must take a hard look at the stark reality and realize that the Islamic religion, though populated by many “good” people, as a whole, because of their terrorist minority are perceived by mainstream Americans as dangerous… (no room for this)
…Therefore, until Islam acts to stop terrorism, as some of their leaders have vowed, but neglected to do, they should not be afforded our cherished American tolerance and openness !
The New York ground zero project is an egregious insult to our country…
Your site limits character amount, therefore see the complete text of, and make comments on, this treatise on Muslim expansionism on my blog site: http://wp.me/pXvyI-1D
and http://wp.me/pXvyI-2V
Best regards,
Jerry Clifford, the Word Guru
Post a Comment