This
document was obtained by WikiLeaks
from the United States Congressional Research Service. The CRS is a
Congressional "think tank" with a staff of around 700.
Reports are commissioned by members of Congress on topics relevant to
current political events. Despite CRS costs to the tax payer of over
$100M a year, its electronic archives are, as a matter of policy, not
made available to the public. Individual members of Congress will
release specific CRS reports if they believe it to assist them
politically, but CRS archives as a whole are firewalled from public
access. This report was obtained by WikiLeaks
staff from CRS computers accessible only from Congressional offices.
A report
from April 12, 2007, was "Prepared primarily for
congressional staff members called upon to help prepare speeches for
Members,” and “provides basic guidance on obtaining speech
material, using it to prepare a speech draft, and presentation.”,
as we read in the abstract. However, it seems that it is more than
that. In the report we can find specific techniques aiming even to
“change an audience's impressions, opinions, or most
ambitiously, their convictions.”
Other
parts simulate propaganda brainwash, like the one below:
Complex
sentences can be clarified by repeating key words and using simple
connections. By numerous rhetorical techniques, the speaker states,
restates, and states again in different ways, the central themes of
the speech.
Under
the headline "rhetorical questions" there is an example
that could be used by the speaker to justify wars:
“Is
peace a rash system?” “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” The speaker leads
the audience to the conclusion he hopes they will draw by asking
a question that makes his point, and that he intends to answer
himself, either immediately, with a flourish, or at greater length
during his remarks, through patient exposition.
Under
the headline "Imagery" we read that:
Mere
clarity is not enough for persuasive rhetoric, however. Indeed, there
are times when clarity, brevity, and the like are not appropriate.
The issues, because of their import and complexity, may preclude such
treatment; similarly, the gravity or delicate political nature of
the occasion may call for some measure of deliberate ambiguity.
Under
the headline "Occasion and Purpose":
Veterans’
Day and Memorial Day are among the most solemn public holidays in the
calendar. For these two events, the speechwriter should focus on
themes of commemoration, service, and sacrifice. The atmosphere
should appropriately be both somber, and hopeful: “their
sacrifice led to a better, more secure life for those who followed
them.”
Under
the headline “Persuasion” we find perhaps the most interesting
part of the report because it describes techniques through which
speakers could even change (and even reverse) the perception of
entire audiences on specific issues:
The
persuasive speech is a two-edged sword: it can seek to instill in the
listeners either the acceptance of, or at least a more favorable
opinion toward, a particular condition, fact, or concept. This
variant is described as advocacy. Conversely, a speech may also
attempt to change an audience’s impressions, opinions, or most
ambitiously, their convictions. Wiethoff calls this dissent, and
asserts that it is more difficult than advocacy, since the speaker
faces the burden of proving to the listeners that what they have
heretofore accepted should be modified or rejected. In both
cases, the writer must marshal the arguments that will convince the
audience.
[...]
in
order to convince an audience, a speaker often needs to combine
persuasion with information. Similarly, while some types of
remarks are intended purely for entertainment, such as a celebrity
roast, the careful speechwriter will always seek to entertain
audiences in order to capture and retain their attention.
But it's
getting ‘better'. Under “Techniques of Persuasion” the examples
being used are really impressive:
There
are many techniques available for the actual writing of a speech.
Almost all speeches delivered by, or on behalf of, Members of
Congress, even those for ceremonial or pro forma occasions, will have
a certain political character because of the Member’s
representative function, and also because of the way in which his or
her office is perceived. In the rhetorical context, political
means persuasive, including the expression of personal interest and
concern, assuring and reassuring, conveying the Member’s identity
with each audience, and so creating a community of interest and
trust. Three kinds of persuasive techniques are usually
distinguished:
•
the appeal to
reasonableness: “Surely Democrats and Republicans alike can agree
that there is no excuse today for hunger in the world’s richest
nation....”
•
the appeal to emotion: “Can
we, as a nation, close our eyes to the spectacle of millions of
children going to bed hungry every night...?”
•
the ethical appeal (that
is, to the character of the audience): “our historic traditions of
decency and generosity demand that we face squarely the question of
hunger in America....”
All
three approaches may be used in any given speech.
This is
quite astonishing. The examples being used (especially the latest
ones) in this 'manual' provide a perfect proof that politicians speak
in standardized terms, even when the refer to the most serious
matters. It shows the complete emptiness and hypocrisy of the
political establishment that has been bought by the big interests.
Most politicians not only ignore the big problems of the society, but
act against it while they pretend that they care.
We knew
that. Now we have more evidence.
Full
report:
Comments
Post a Comment