Dissecting distraction discourse

Background

Parties, politicians, and supporters often take advantage of a rhetorical strategy I call “distraction discourse”: Using proxy arguments to shift public conversation away from the outcome of a proposal, instead directing attention to the symbolism, identity, and spectacle of it. For example, rather than saying “we want to monitor your neighborhoods to selectively enforce the law on dissenters”, a party position might be “we’re tough on crime!” This has the effect of pitting advocates and opponents against each other on the surface-level rhetoric, giving political parties cover to advance otherwise unpopular or indefensible views. Recognizing this common pitfall is essential to advancing conversations on heated topics.

Examples

I’ve already covered a few examples of this in the past:

1. “The right to life” → Government medical infringement
2. “States’ rights” → Incrementalism
3. “Law and order” → Selective enforcement
4. “Heritage, not hate” → Dog-whistle racism
5. “National security” → Creating “other” groups

And, undoubtedly, I will cover more in the future. It’s prevalent in a society directed by a constant barrage of news, intensely divisive politics, and content streams that erode attention spans.

Anatomy of a proxy argument

A proxy argument—the spoken piece that takes the place of true ideological intent—looks like this:

• The claim: Usually a valid, bipartisan concern that any reasonable person might have, and no reasonable person would oppose.
  • Example: “We want our neighborhoods to keep their charm and historical points of interest.”
• The mantra: A thought-terminating cliché which advocates of an idea can repeat to shortcut having to express the full idea.
  • Example: “Preserve neighborhood character!”
• The agenda: The true underlying goal. Sometimes those who spread the claims and mantras, such as politicians, are fully aware of the agenda, but want to divert public discourse away from it; others are unaware and spread it as a matter of identity or perceived benefit.
  • Example: Expanding MBTA access to Massachusetts towns attacks “character” by lowering the bar for entry to live there.

Dissecting discourse

It’s important to note that proxy arguments don’t always stem from malice; sometimes it’s lazy shorthand for complex ideas. When confronting a claim, it’s essential to recognize the words being said, explore how they connect to a topic, find common ground, and build upon it. For example, MassGOP claims to promote:

limited government, free enterprise, and strong communities […] [to] make Massachusetts a better place to live, work, start a business, and raise a family.

These are all noble goals; someone who grew up supporting the GOP reading that might conclude that anyone who opposes the GOP must oppose these wonderful things. And, on the other hand, someone who vehemently opposes the GOP might find themselves instinctually arguing against something like “strong communities”, assuming that there is a darker meaning to it. In this way, the leaders of the GOP can successfully redirect conversation away from ways in which they weaken communities, and instead toward the very definition of one. To catch this logical trap, follow these five guidelines when engaged in civil disagreements:

1. Identify the policy. Cut through slogans and address the content at the heart of the debate.
2. Call the mantra out. Platitudes aren’t written law, and bills always have more to them than punchy phrases.
3. Follow the power trail. Discourse distractions often pretend to serve the public while benefiting and harming distinct groups in reality.
4. Check for contradictions. When possible, point out how the stated goals of a policy contradict its actual outcomes.
5. Look for voids. What conversations are being overlooked in favor of emotional pleas and alluring ideological advancements?

Breaking down and challenging dishonest rhetorical strategies ensures conversations that can be exchanges of ideas, rather than ideological purity tests for either side.