The Power of Rhetoric

Lee Sigelman writes about a new paper from Christian Grose and Jason Husser on political rhetoric. One of two major conclusions:

We find that more sophisticated campaign speech by a candidate results in a higher likelihood that a citizen will vote for that candidate, though this effect of linguistic sophistication is conditioned by voter cognition. The most highly educated voters are most likely to use the non-policy dimension of complex rhetoric in casting their vote.

In short, you appeal to highly-educated voters not by saying smarter stuff, but just by using smarter words. The really interesting thing, though, is that if I'm reading this right there's no downside to "linguistic sophistication." Non-college voters don't exhibit the effect as strongly, but it doesn't turn them off. Maybe everyone should be more like RFK and quote Aeschylus in their speeches.

Comments

That explains why Bush beat Gore.

Posted by Brian | April 17, 2008 3:38 PM

That explains why Bush beat Gore.

To be fair, Bush may not use more sophisticated words than his opponents, but he does use more made-up words.

Posted by Craig | April 17, 2008 3:43 PM

I have found the opposite to be true in speaking to juries, which essentially is what a political campaign is like-- trying to convince people to go your way based on narrative facts and argument. Get all erudite and you lose, more often than not, unless your facts are so strong that you can't possibly screw it up.

If it's a close call and your rhetoric creates the impression you are talking down to them, the jury thinks you are a pretentious prick, and goes with the other guy.

Of course, it was always the other guy who was the pretentious prick in my cases.

Posted by Beer Here | April 17, 2008 3:53 PM

The Wire's Clay Davis quoted Aeschylus.

Posted by M | April 17, 2008 3:54 PM

Hence the intellectuals' strong preference for Adlai Staevenson over Dwight Eisenhower, despite the tremendous amoung of evidence that would otherwise lead a rational observer to conclude that Eisenhower was much better suited for the job.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 3:58 PM

you appeal to highly-educated voters not by saying smarter stuff, but just by using smarter words

I would change this to: You appeal to highly-educated voters not by saying smarter stuff, but instead by being eloquent. Politics is the performance art guilty pleasure of the educated elite.

Posted by dry_fish | April 17, 2008 3:58 PM

This is news? I hate to say it, but I don't think anything really new has been written about oratory since Cicero.

Posted by arbitrista | April 17, 2008 4:15 PM

Maybe this is true, but you'd better not go windsurfing if you want to get elected. Stick to hunting and bowling (unless you're Obama). Although I will note that hockey seems to be okay. Kerry helped himself in the New Hampshire primary by playing in a charity hockey game a few days before.

Posted by fostert | April 17, 2008 4:19 PM

despite the tremendous amoung of evidence that would otherwise lead a rational observer to conclude that Eisenhower was much better suited for the job.

What evidence would that be?

Posted by blah | April 17, 2008 4:23 PM

Stick to hunting and bowling (unless you're Obama).

No candidate went wrong sticking to wearing a suit at all times. Men who always wear ties avoid being painted as admirers of Ahmadinejad.

Though I think America could do better by having their candidates wear snappier-looking suits. Washington is stuck in a sort of sartorial mediocrity whereby everyone seems to spend $2000-$8000 on suits that look drab.

Posted by Tyro | April 17, 2008 4:26 PM

Oh, I dunno, blah, maybe effectively heading up one of the largest multinational bureaucracies ever in existence until that time, with all the diplomatic, managerial, and logistic skill such a task requires.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 4:32 PM

So don't think that reasonable people could disagree on whether Eisenhower's success as a general gave him the best qualifications to be president?

Posted by blah | April 17, 2008 4:36 PM

"No candidate went wrong sticking to wearing a suit at all times."

Has any candidate ever really worn a suit at all times? I can't remember one. Maybe Adlai Stevenson (before my time), but he didn't fare so well. Even Nixon took off the jacket and rolled his sleeves. Ronald Reagan was always cutting wood. And Bush clears brush whenever he can. Clinton jogged around in clothes that were far too revealing. Even Bush senior wore "regular guy" clothes. And then there's Carter. Don't even get me started about that.

Posted by fostert | April 17, 2008 4:39 PM

"Has any candidate ever really worn a suit at all times?"

Oops, I forgot Rudy Giuliani. He always wore a suit. Didn't really work for him in Iowa did it? It didn't even work for him in Florida. In fact, it didn't really work at all.

Posted by fostert | April 17, 2008 4:49 PM

fostert, let me rephrase that, "No candidate went wrong wearing a suit." It seems that the biggest candidate "visual gaffs" occur when the candidate is wearing something other than a suit. Thus, best to avoid casual clothes altogether.

Posted by Tyro | April 17, 2008 4:50 PM

Aeschylus? Bah. I quote Flan O'Brien,

"There is nothing so like the legs for determining the kangaroolity of a woman."

Very useful. It comes up in conversation all the time.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 17, 2008 4:50 PM

I think blandly describing Eisenhower's experience as "success as a general" misses the point. Eisenhower's military experience was highly political, in that it entailed effectively managing relationships with allies of many different backgrounds, allies who couldn't simply be ordered, but had to be coaxed or cajoled. This neatly imitated skills a President needs in spades, given the structural weakness of the office. Eisenhower also oversaw one of larger bureaucracies ever seen until that time, which also is a needed skill of the Presidency. The evidence to support that Stevenson would be better at these tasks than Eisenhower was pretty slim. Does it mean that anyone who voted for Stevenson was a raving loon? No, of course not, but if the people Matt is describing in his post turned to Stevenson in greater proportions that the population as a whole, the theory that Matt is discussing fits pretty well.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 4:51 PM

This is news? I hate to say it, but I don't think anything really new has been written about oratory since Cicero.

Yeah, sure, but a lot of 'smart people' still don't get it:

Blair is actually dumb as a rock, yet they were falling all over themselves celebrating him when he spoke in the US - "oooh Bush is so stupid why can't we have somebody intelligent like Blair" - not realizing that it was all rhetoric and that he got played bigtime by Bush, which is saying something.

Posted by novakant | April 17, 2008 4:58 PM

So you think that reasonable people cannot disagree on whether skill at bureaucratic management is the most important qualification when choosing a president?

Anyway, these are the states that Stevenson won in 1952:

Kentucky
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina

Posted by blah | April 17, 2008 4:59 PM

Tyro: okay, I'm with you on that. The most famous clothing gaffe was Carter's "Cardigan Incident." Had he worn a suit, people might have listened to him. Other politicians have tried hard to beat that gaffe, but so far they have failed.

In the end though, I don't think you can avoid casual clothes. I mean, really, can you show up at a Texas BBQ in a three piece suit? No way, everyone will think you're an idiot. Get yourself a Stetson and a five pound belt buckle, and make sure your denim jeans are properly ironed. Otherwise you'd just look like an alien.

Posted by fostert | April 17, 2008 5:02 PM

Apparently, blah, there is something happening in the fiber optic cables which has prevented you twice from seeing that I first referenced the political skill Eisenhower displayed. Yes, I do think political skill is the most important quality a President needs. The states you referenced say nothing about the percentage of highly educated people (which there were far fewer of in the fifties than today) who voted for Stevenson.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Nixon on the beach in Brooks Brothers and wingtips was not a great image.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM

Quoting Matthew Yglesias: "The really interesting thing, though, is that if I'm reading this right there's no downside to 'linguistic sophistication.' Non-college voters don't exhibit the effect as strongly, but it doesn't turn them off."

You are reading it right. Sophisticated candidate speech has the biggest impact for highest-educated voters, while sophisticated speech does not make lower-educated voters more likely to vote against the candidate using sophisticated language. Simplicity in language is not preferred by any voters, regardless of education (at least based on our measure).

See Figure 2 on p. 34 of the paper, which is available here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1119444

CG

Posted by Christian Grose | April 17, 2008 5:13 PM

The old saying, and it really is an old saying, I saw a movie with Will Rogers in it where he says it's an old saying, that describes this is that a politician has to know 'when to say isn't and when to say ain't'. Been around forever.

Posted by j mct | April 17, 2008 5:33 PM

"Nixon on the beach in Brooks Brothers and wingtips was not a great image."

I'd forgotten about that one. Certainly a classic. In defense of Nixon, I'd say that he was a really awkward person, anyway. In spite of Neil Young's insistence that "even Richard Nixon has got soul," Nixon really had none.

Posted by fostert | April 17, 2008 5:35 PM

Years ago, John T. Molloy wrote a followup to his "Dress for Success" books, called "Live for Success" which provided evidence that if you're "upper class" in appearance and mannerisms, even if not in actuality, you will have more success in most situations than if you're not. While there was some regional variance in this, it applied in most places.

Shorter version: beta chimps follow alpha chimps.

Duh.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 6:02 PM

I agree completely, Matt. Everyone should be more like RFK.

Posted by aleks | April 17, 2008 8:39 PM

"Everyone should be more like RFK."

Yeah - dead.

Reminds me of the line in the "Destroyer" pulp fictions series. Remo quotes Kennedy's line about "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

To which Chiun responded, "And where's he now?"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 9:21 PM

I didn't agree with many of them, but Michael Gerson's speeches for GWB were actually quite eloquent on paper. The differences between Obama and Bush, of course, are that Obama is quite capable of writing his own Gerson-style humbug eloquence, and is capable of delivering it as if he wrote it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 17, 2008 9:23 PM

"Nixon on the beach in Brooks Brothers and wingtips was not a great image."
Posted by Will Allen

There's an interesting story about Nixon's walk on the beach in a suit. There was a point where Nixon was talking to one of the locals about something, I forget what, with genuine interest and enthusiasm. A photographer got a great shot that made Nixon look like a regular guy. The campaign confiscated it because his tie was out of place.

Posted by Njorl | April 18, 2008 9:23 AM

While I haven't listened that much to Obama's speeches (I did check some of them now on his website), I didn't get the impression he uses big words simply to impress.

You should say things as simply as possible, but no simpler. Some things are inherently non-simple.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 18, 2008 1:39 PM