« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Apophasis: Don't Read This
If you come away from this post learning one thing, it should be the definition and art of apophasis - affirming something by denying it. Joseph Romm does a good job of explaining why repeating something in the act of refuting it is ineffectual, and just gives a nice overview of one psychological side of public persuasion.
But you know what not to do. Don't click here.
Advertisement
Comments (28)
Thanks for the interesting article, Des. Not recommended.
Of course the Republicans clearly understand the psychological ramifications of these rhetorical techniques. They are much more disciplined about message than Democrats are. Which reminds me: What is our message?
August 8, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is theirs?
August 8, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
We (the Democrats) suck. This cycle it is an entirely negative message because they know on the merrits they lose.
August 8, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
As instructed, I didn't read this post and I'm just using it as a venue not to say that Barack Obama is a sociopathic con-man, and likewise I'm not saying that Obamabots are semi-literate suckers who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from their hypocritical Messiah Barack Obama, if Barack Obama were a hypocritical Messiah, and and the Obamabots were semi-literate suckers, and I'm not saying that he is, or they are.
August 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just posted on my dead Kerry thread from Commentary Magazine, Kerry saying Obama was against drilling, Daschle emphatically saying Obama was for - on the same Sunday.
I'm sure we can nail that pesky little policy issue down somehow...
August 8, 2008 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a more valid point than the Romm article.
You can repeat something in the process of denying it, and have that denial be very effective. But the key in denial is the same as the key in affirmation: consistency of message, backed up with facts.
This is what I find so frustrating about Democratic surrogates. They have the facts on their side - all they have to do is repeat the same stuff to drive it home.
August 8, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't approach this from common sense or logic - the reptilian brain doesn't work that way.
If studies show that we remember arguments differently than we'd guess, it's quite possible the studies are right.
Recently I saw one that showed that more intelligent people were more likely to use arguments to biasedly pile on existing opinions, contrary to what you'd expect. If you're more clever, you more cleverly find a way to prove what you want to prove.
August 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible they're right. It's also possible they're wrong.
I think the only application of "clever" is in the simplicity of the Republican approach. They just say the same stuff, over and over and over. And people buy it every time.
The fact is, Americans will believe most anything they see on TV, especially if it's said by someone with lots of microphones in front of him.
This is what I think scares a lot of people about Obama's approach - rather than get out and give the typical loud denial or return smear, he's not blowing his top in response. I think it's working. I imagine you disagree. That's okay.
August 8, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where I disagree is that it's simply repetition, and not attributable to more basic rules of psychology and communication. Democrats like yelling and repeating too - why don't more people believe them when they say flat out untrue stuff?
August 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my fave - "There is no chance Hillary Clinton will be Vice-President." Which, from the mouths of many, IS an apophasis. The more people deny it... the more its logic is affirmed.
As in, yeah, she's gonna speak, 18 million cracks in the ceiling will appear, the place will roar... and THEN Bill will speak the next night, VP night, and the place will roar... and then we'll see.... Bayh? The political illogic of Obama announcing anyone other than HRC - and dealing with the utter damp squib that'll be - staggers me.
Romm didn't differentiate well. You CAN deny and defeat SOME things - simple assertions and such. But you can't beat real MYTHS - i.e. large stories, things with deep some lived truth - just by stating they're "not true." e.g. McCain IS a maverick - just not on some things. But you CAN'T kill it by simply saying he "isn't" one.
Back to the VP. Obama has to be SEEN to "not need" her. To be unpressured, ahead in the polls, choosing from a position of strength. And now, with some time, and some head-fakes... he's got that room. But here's the rub. Officially, Obama doesn't like "drama." Which is a load of bollocks(See: Berlin.) What he thought he was involved with was ONE drama - his story.
BUT. Life, written large, is myth - and so, we've got two BIG stories, like it or not. Intertwined. And Obama is repeatedly on record as stating how he feels that should be dealt with. "Heal the nation." "Reach across old bitternesses." But can he do it? This is a BIG test - of his own message, his own myth. Deny HRC, and he cuts his own story, his own message, into pieces. Because the TWO elements in this mythic story are NOT going to end with one partner - HRC and women - just "disappearing." And everyone SENSED this - even the Obama backers - months ago. Gut-level, that's why they wanted her to "disappear."
Myth is big. It ain't fact-based, rational politics. So now, Obama has his moment. Let the myth unfold with her outside the tent... which can pretty much ONLY end in tears. Or take her in as VP. Which - yes - could end in tears as well. But... maybe not.
Hillary Clinton will not be VP.
(And now... back to my regularly scheduled vacation.)
August 8, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not being ironic, are you? Because you are breaking all the rules:
1) Never repeat the word your opponent is trying to push.
2) You can't debunk a myth by verbally repeating it.
3) Negatives carry very little rhetorical weight.
4) Telling people that a consumer claim is false can make them misremember it as true.
August 8, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was a joke, but you'll have to look inside Quinn's mind, which isn't too hard to do if you don't mind the tubage.
August 8, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, there is an alternate sane universe where the person who finished a close second in delegates and actually won the popular vote is automatically added to the ticket as VP. Obama chose the drama of a "VP hunt" instead. For people who want to finish this thing now and guarantee a Dem victory, Obama and Axelrod have become real downers.
August 8, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside the wisdom of citing a metric that is non-existent in Democratic primaries...
Further leaving aside the wisdom of adding popular votes from unrecognized primaries to boost this non-existent metric...
And even further, assuming that this ticket would win in a walk (which is hardly a given)...
Put yourself in the presumptive nominee's shoes and consider the situation. I don't see how you can pick a VP who twice stated (in so many words) that your presumptive opponent is more qualified than you, whose own words are being run in ads against you, and whose two-term ex-President husband refuses to say you're ready for the job (after having made that claim about his wife for months, and knowing full well that's the only non-controversial answer he could give to that question).
August 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, McCain is certainly using Clinton's words against Obama now, isn't he? Using that very quote. All Obama did is make a speech. But it's true, isn't it? And you knew she had said it when you went ahead and nominated Obama anyway, didn't you?
I'm not sure I can think of anyone who plays harder ball than Hillary Clinton. Our candidate has a choice. Put her on the ticket and sew this up now, or take his chances with some non-entity in November.
If he puts her on the ticket, she'll handle what she said about him. If he doesn't, he can handle it himself.
August 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not entirely true, given that he made the same statements in 2003 and 2004 that he made in 2002. So, it wasn't one speech - it was a consistent position. But, I'll even concede that point to you, for the sake of discussion.
I voted for Obama because I feel he's the best candidate. As far as her possibly being VP, I don't vote for presidents based on their running mates. However, I didn't think there was much chance of Clinton being on the ticket - precisely because of her elevating McCain over Obama in some of her attacks. (Obviously, I still hold that view.)
Playing political hardball has its consequences - and if you lose while playing hardball, that's when the consequences are at their worst. There was a big risk to those attacks. She took that risk, and lost. She created the environment that will now most likely keep her off the ticket. It's too bad, as I believe she's a tremendous politician. But it is as she made it, no?
August 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly is. We'll see what she does this week. As I understand it, she's going to step up as the chief surrogate while he's on vacation.
By the way, if he is going to put her on the ticket, I can't think of a better staged convention, designed to bury McCain in a post-convention bounce he'll never recover from.
Tuesday night Hillary Clinton speaks, marking the 88th anniversary of the day women earned the right to vote, flanked by her fellow woman Senators. On Wednesday night, Bill Clinton puts her name into nomination for the VP slot and she makes her acceptance speech. The rest of the convention is Obama's, building on the enthusiasm of the Clinton wing of the Party. A lesser orator might worry about being overshadowed by the Clinton nomination. Obama doesn't have to be.
Will it play that way? Probably only in my mind. But I thought I'd share it with you.
August 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've surpassed my Veep prediction threshold. It's either going to be Dorothy from Kansas or Betty Boop, though I was rooting for Tank Girl (the one from the zine, not the movie)
August 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every fibre in my reptilian political brain says its HRC. Though it would be one the greatest political moments ever to have Bill speak just before the VP, him pissed off and liquored up, knowing it wasn't her. The world would sit, waiting, for him to explode.
My personal pick though, has to be someone who can truly get into the gutter with an old man like McCain. I figure Hunter Thompson would do the trick. With Warren Zevon advising.
Billy's right. Who gives a fuck how they campaign together? The drama of a BO-HRC convention would bury McCain.
August 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making a VP of the person who got the second highest number of votes was a brief, 18th century (and very early 19th century) habit. In fact, in 1804, the 12th Amendment was passed, the essence of which was, and is, according to "USConstitution.net":
"The Constitution was written before parties were players in American politics.
When John Adams was chosen for President in the 1796 election, the second-place candidate, Thomas Jefferson, became Vice President; but Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. The two clashed several times during Adams's presidency, though Adams's conflicts with Hamilton, a Federalist, too, probably caused Adams more concern.
In the election of 1800, the flaws of the original system became more than apparent. Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got 73 votes in the Electoral College, forcing the House of Representatives to choose.
The problem? Both Jefferson and Burr were candidates of the same party, with Burr chosen to be the Vice President; some states preferred Burr, but neither was able to get the required majority until the stalemate was ultimately broken.
The result was the 12th Amendment, approved in Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804 (189 days), in time for the new process to be in place for the 1804 election. With the 12th, Electors are directed to vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than for two choices for President..."
August 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The commenter Desidero's point on the issue of affecting public opinion by using a directed term considered negative in the rebuttal to that term is lost. The commenter, Desidero, uncharacteristically makes no mistakes in the title of the post though, despite the claims by other prominent commenters such as roo_P who claim the title was overly simplistic and even dangerously close to being inaccurate because it is a better example of the "forbidden fruit" idiom and the psychology of prohibition. The commenter Desidero's post is not one to read because of the idea presented even though the title was not wrong and we should do all that we can to ignore even the existence of said commenter, Desidero.
August 8, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must say I do not thank commentator roo_P for not approving my obvious message and unfortunately for roo_P that personage will not be acknowledged so that we can all forget roo_P knowing the name and wrong concept of being simplistic and inaccurate will be forgotten.
August 8, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, and there's Chuck Schumer proving exactly what you don't do. "He's not one of us" Chuck keeps repeating. "How can you say He's not one of us?" Great, Chuck - I don't recall the Republicans saying it, but now that you mention it, is he one of us?
Qui s'excuse s'accuse.
August 8, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer:
Someone needs to put tape over Chuck's mouth RIGHT NOW, so that reporters don't have an opportunity to supplement the Obama talking points with words like "vapid."
August 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Axelrod deserve everything they're getting right now. They've been too cute by far about this VP selection.
August 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Schumer reportedly got a perfect score on his SATs. He graduated from Harvard, if I recall correctly. Chuck has been successful in NY politics for, how many years?
I don't believe for one second that Chuck is so clueless that he doesn't understand what he's saying. WHY he's saying it is anyone's guess.
August 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out here, Des. Obviously, I'm not going to tie myself in knots by clicking on a link you told me not to click on, so I may never find out how that apophasis stuff works unless you tell me.
For example, is it okay for someone, like Clinton say, to tell people "McCain doesn't want you to realize how hard Obama has had to work to get where he is?"
August 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She already built him up by saying "Obama has no experience" a thousand times during the primary.
I've come to think that the bigger reason for apophasis is that while short term we might be warned off, long-term we hate to be told "no", so that subconsciously we struggle to reverse it - seemingly after 3 days as the article notes. Which may be why Republicans are so good at getting our goat - they create new narratives out of whole cloth. The Rove thing is not to deny someone's strength - it's to co-opt it and bastardize it. Of course that Alabama politician was good with children...heh heh heh. One small chuckle whispered round the state flipped it. Better than saying the guy *wasn't* good with children. Of course Obama's popular...heh heh heh... all celebrities are.
Pretty weird, eh?
August 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment