Ironically, most dictionary definitions of word "rhetoric" resemble the very art they are defining. With one exception, descriptions of the science of language usage are high-minded, attractive - you definitely want to be associated with rhetoric.
Unless, that is, you are being linked to its exceptional characterization: "the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast."
Unfortunately for us all, particularly those of us who are subjected to lots and lots of media stimuli (in other words, virtually all sentient beings), the unflattering form of rhetoric seems to be the prevailing form. From inflammatory political oratory to contrived corporate messaging, an over-abundance of utter bombast is cluttering our air space ... and head space.
Today's language landfill is accumulating because too many top-end rhetoricians are failing to bother with the back-end support that is critical to their triangulated messaging. You can develop all the flowery rhetoric and capture the perfect three words or expressions, but without a solid ground game in place to explain and then highlight the benefits, those top-end words may as well be "blah blah blah."
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham highlighted modern rhetoric's explanation deficiency in a recent essay in which he credited Bill Clinton with coining the compelling expression "relentless explanation." Meacham, always erudite and unerringly fair and polite on cable gabfests (truly a behavioral rarity on cable), referred to Clinton's rhetorical genius while decrying the Obama administration's failings in the important part of messaging, the back-end fulfillment.
Meacham said Clinton used that expression while noting that "if you explain something to me, even if I don’t agree with you, you have nevertheless honored me.”
Obama's problem, said Meacham, is that he has been “professorial without teaching us and eloquent without moving us.” And that malady in Obama's communications plan is what plagues too many "quick draw" message development coaches. They can supply powerful words that leap from what Clinton referred to as "pretty speeches," but many of them don't seem to bother with the piece of the puzzle that involves concise, authentic answers to people's key follow-up questions.
The result is political stumping and corporate campaigns that ring hollow, that don't engender strong support because the intended audiences feel they're being "talked down to."
And when that happens, no amount of "pretty" words can bridge the rhetoric gap. Only deeds and authenticity can do that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The old saw, "I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care" may be appropriate here. I don't believe many people in the current administration care very much at all for anything beyond landing their own vision.
ReplyDelete