The Strategy of Rhetoric William H' Riker

1
The Strategy of RhetoricWilliam H. Riker

• Summary
• Negative rhetoric capitalize on voters
  systematic biases
• Risk aversion
• Inflation of subjective probabilities of rare
  events
• Selective attention and ignorance

2
Interactive Debate

• As in debates or courts, opponent can counter
  arguments
• Still, campaigns are not debates or court cases
• No arbiter to decide whats germane
• No debate judges to score arguments
  effectiveness
• What do rhetors decide to argue about?
• How do rhetors decide what works and what does
  not?

3
Rikers Model

• Campaigns make arguments supporting a position
• FEDERALIST POSITION
• Failing to adopt the Constitution will lead to
  another war
• ANTI-FEDERALIST POSITION
• The Constitution will create a costly and
  tyrannical federal government
• Voters accept some of these arguments, reject
  others

4
Rikers Model

• Campaign over a binary outcome e.g., yes no
• Advocates take positions, xj, related to outcome
• Each position, xj, has a set of dimensions, di
• e.g., a party advertising its ideal points on,
  e.g., defence,
• Size of force
• Terms of Service Conscription vs. Volunteer
• Relative size of defence budget

5
Rikers Model

• An argument, ?h(xj) links xj to di in minds of
  voters
• e.g., a standing, professional army is a threat
  to liberty
• , a professional army can be smaller, less
  expensive, and still more effective than a
  conscript army
• For some set of voters C(d) this d is salient

6
Rikers Model

• For voter d is salient if
• there is a best argument in d, i.e., prefers some
  xh(d) to xj(d),
• Uses this d to decide how to vote
• Voter could belong to several sets of Ck(d)
• Voters choice a (complex) function of arguments
  (?s) positions (xs) on salient dimensions (ds)

7
Rikers Model

• Advocate (rhetor) does not know
• How voters choice function works, i.e., what
  argument, ?, makes a position, x, more
  influential in voters choice
• How many voters take d as salient, i.e., size of
  C(d)
• Thus, advocates work by trial-and-error

8
Rikers Model

• Trial-and-error method has many opportunity costs
• Time spent on xh cannot be spent on xj
• Determining which C(d) are biggest
• Mechanical costs of publicizing xj

9
Rikers Model

• Costs borne regardless of whether or not advocate
  wins on d
• Costs are linear (i.e., convincing one voter in
  C(d) does not make it easier/harder to convince
  another voter in C(d))
• Benefits accrue only when majority of voters in
  C(d) are convinced
• Benefits exceed costs at some point (else
  rational advocates would avoid d)

10
Costs Benefits of Rhetoric on C(d)
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
11
Mirror-Image Costs Benefits for Opponents
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
B(No)
K(No)
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
100
Voters in C(d) convinced for No
0
12
Break-Even Points for Opposing Advocates
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
B(No)
t(YES)
t(NO)
K(No)
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
13
Dispersion Dominance

• Inferences
• Dispersion If an advocate does not reach the
  break-even point on d, s/he abandons d
• Dominance If an advocate attains the break-even
  point on d, s/he reiterates these profitable
  arguments
• When one side has an advantage on an issue, the
  other side ignores it but when neither side has
  an advantage, both seek new and advantageous
  issues.

14
Dispersion Dominance

• Additional Considerations
• One side might have lower marginal costs (e.g., a
  reputation that provides credibility)
• Distribution of voters preferences could favour
  one side over the other

15
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• Riker offers two sorts of evidence for dispersion
  dominance
• Statistical examination of the distribution of
  arguments in different campaign periods
• Qualitative assessment of specific arguments

16
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• Key statistical problem what is the baseline
  from which we measure dispersion or dominance?
• A 11 ratio of words implies a standoff... Which
  should not persist
• But recall basic outline volume of each campaign

17
Anti-Federalist Themes
18
Federalist Themes
19
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• If campaigns just randomly spouted arguments, one
  might expect a federalist / anti-federalist ratio
  of
• 3,204,819 / 1,742,434 1.84

20
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• But this baseline ratio changes over campaign
• Riker divides campaign into 3 periods

21
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• Five issues on governmental structure
• Separation of powers
• Power of the President
• Senate too powerful
• Unicameral vs Bicameral legislature
• Structure, size, selection of Congress

22
Testing Dispersion Dominance
23
Testing Dispersion Dominance

• Anti-federalists did not abandon all issues
• On how a national judiciary might affect
  liberty they dominated

24
Qualitative Evidence

• Washingtons endorsement
• the greatest interest of every true American
  was the consolidation of our Union, in which is
  involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, and
  perhaps our national existence.

25
Qualitative Evidence

• Federalists immediately use Washingtons
  endorsement in their speeches and writings
• It the Constitution is ushered to us under
  the respectable and illustrious signature of
  GEORGE WASHINGTON.To suppose that any act of
  his, could injure a people whose freedom he has
  already established, would be a piece of base
  ingratitude, that no honest American can possibly
  be guilty of.

26
Qualitative Evidence

• Anti-federalists try to fight back
• The wisest and best men may err, and their
  errors, if adopted, may be fatal to the
  community. (Cato I)
• The counter-arguments are not popular
• Washington writes an unequivocal letter of
  support in Dec. 1787
• Federalists reprint this 51 times
  anti-federalists ignore it

27
Research Essay 3 Testing Rikers Theories

• The battle over Confederation in Nova Scotia was
  fought in the media as much as in the legislative
  assembly. Howe began the public campaign against
  Confederation by publishing a series of
  editorials, the "Botheration Letters", in the
  Morning Chronicle (owned by his friend Annand).
  McCully and Tupper responded using the Unionist
  and Halifax Journal as their mouthpiece.
• Use the selected editorials from the Morning
  Chronicle and the Unionist to test Riker's
  theories about rhetorical interaction in
  political campaigns.