Don’t be fooled. Gingrich is a master rhetorican.
For the past week or so, the American media has been discussing some seemingly strange remarks Newt Gingrich recently made about President Obama to the conservative National Review:
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
A thorough parsing of these words is in order, not because they ring true, but rather because of the insight we can gain into how conservative rhetoric and message framing often work.
Before proceeding, recall that in 1996 Gingrich wrote what is now an infamous memorandum for GOPAC titled, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In that memo, the then Speaker of the House listed one set of emotionally charged words that Republicans could associate with themselves (“Optimistic Positive Governing Words”) and another set they could associate with their opponents (“Contrasting Words”). Here Gingrich acknowledged an unfortunate fact about the American people: they are far too responsive to rhetoric and are less concerned with substantive policy matters. Ironically, Gingrich features “cynicism” in his list of words to heap upon one’s opponents. After all, few things are more cynical than preparing a list of buzzwords to which you think your compatriots would respond in knee-jerk fashion. As far as Newt is concerned, Americans are not people; they are Pavlovian dogs to be conditioned.
Turning again to the present, let us examine Gingrich’s remarks about President Obama to see what’s behind these prima facie idiotic comments.
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension…”
Quick. Think of some things that are or are said to be “outside our comprehension.” Here’s what I came up with:
God
Satan
Demons
Ghosts
Aliens/UFOs
The common theme here is the unknown. And how do humans feel about that which is unknown to them? They fear it, whatever it happens to be. So really this first part of Gingrich’s question is constructed so as to suggest that Obama is unknowable, and therefore people ought to be frightened of him. While the saying, “People fear what they do not understand” is certainly cliché, it is very often true. Obama is particularly susceptible to this line of attack because he’s African-American, has a unique (and foreign) name, spent much time abroad as a child, and had a father born in Kenya, which is not a country typically associated with the melting pot of America. Hence the frequent suggestions by some conservatives that Obama is secretly a Muslim or at the very least sympathizes with Sharia Law, that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation theology, or that he was born in Kenya and therefore should be disqualified from the Presidency. Newt’s message here is clear: Obama is unknowable and untrustworthy. Therefore he should be feared.
Continuing on,
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior…”
This phrase about “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” seems to be everyone’s (Left and Right) favorite part. Here Gingrich is reinforcing the image of Obama as a foreign and unknowable entity, unless of course “you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” And what American understands that? In fact, what do these words even mean?
For Gingrich, associating the word “Kenyan” with Obama while criticizing him is just another way of calling him an unknown, or a foreigner, or the Other, if you will. But insertion of the term “anti-colonial” really left me scratching my head. The extent of my knowledge about “Kenyan, anti-colonial” behavior is the Mau Mau Rebellion in 1950s, when native Kenyans fought an ongoing insurrection against British colonial soldiers who were occupying their land. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it has played out many times literally the world over, including here in the 1770s when Americans took up arms against their British colonial oppressors, who were far nicer to the Americans than they were to the Kenyans. Furthermore, as an ideology, “colonialism” has a notoriously bad reputation and rightfully so. Conquering foreign peoples, pillaging their resources, and taking their land forcibly for one’s own use is frowned upon by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. It is one thing to advocate an interventionist foreign policy (à la George W. Bush), but it’s quite another to imply that being “anti-colonial” is somehow wrongheaded (à la King George
Of course, I haven’t heard anyone in the media besides AlterNet point this out—that not only should Barack Obama have an “anti-colonial” worldview, but so should everyone on the planet.
Continuing on,
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”
Quick. What are things people “piece together”?
Puzzles
Crime scenes
IKEA furniture
Ouija board sessions
The common theme here is frustration. When one “pieces together” something such as one of the above, it can be a very rewarding experience. But like cracking a code the process of getting there can be a very painstaking experience fraught with aggravation and angst. Here Gingrich wishes to convey the message that Obama is a puzzle to be solved, but only by those few who understand “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of people never will, and thus Obama will remain “outside our comprehension.”
While it is true that Gingrich is not making an outright claim but rather asking a question about Obama, the mere musing is suggestive enough to accomplish the rhetorical goal of painting the President as an outsider who is hopelessly inaccessible to most Americans. Furthermore, in the very next sentence Gingrich immediately transforms his “question” into a “fact” by stating,
“That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
Thus we see that Newt’s question was a rhetorical one, a statement of “fact” designed to strike upon the key themes of foreignness, mysteriousness, and uncertainty.
The phrase, “predictive model for his behavior” is not one that is heard in everyday conversation. If it is heard at all such a statement is most likely to be uttered by a naturalist studying an elusive species of animal, or perhaps by a psychologist attempting to understand the behavior of a manic depressive or a schizophrenic. Either way, the phrase “predictive model for his behavior” is crafted so as to dehumanize Obama, to make him into an object of study rather than a fellow human being or a fellow American. “Predictive modeling” is not something in which most people engage, and certainly not in regards to their fellow humans. Thus, Gingrich is again reinforcing the idea that Obama is unknowable, and also that attempts to understand him or indeed, connect with him as a human being, is sure to be a futile endeavor.
The above analysis of a mere two sentences is admittedly lengthy. However, these statements typify modern conservative rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that requires enemies to tear down. American conservatism today is bereft of any real ideas or actual solutions, and so it must constantly be attacking something in order to be effective. Conservatives have seemingly cornered the market on patriotism, not because they are truly great patriots, but because they are constantly railing against both real and imagined boogeymen who seek to do America harm. Hence the frequent use of the phrase “anti-American” by conservative pundits and politicians to describe everything from war protesters to secularism to a health care bill. Conservatives understand that the best defense is a good offense. If conservatives weren’t constantly on the offensive, they would have to spend more time articulating and defending their policy prescriptions, which are often quite unpalatable.
Key to political rhetoric—especially conservative political rhetoric—in contemporary America is the ability to convey deep emotional messages using a few hollow words. What came out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth recently was not an accident, and it would be a grave mistake for liberals to assume that his comments were merely off-the-cuff and said in an unthinking manner. Gingrich knows precisely what he is doing. He’s not alone.
- Max Canning
