Howard Dean Teaches Sleaze - The Pivot

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard Dean Teaches Sleaze - The Pivot

This is not a rhetorical metaphor. Howard Dean is literally teaching Austrians how to be sleazy during political debates or interviews.

He is teaching them a technique called "the pivot." This is where you do not answer a question you are asked, but instead talk about something more favorable to your side that carries an emotional load, especially an attack against the other side.

For transition from the expected answer to your own topic, you use phrases like "Well that's interesting... but we're here to talk about xxxxxxx..." or "That's OK to think about... what about when they did xxxxxxxx?"

The rationale is to not let the other side set the agenda of the discussion. You control the conversation.

Notice, also, that they do not offend the questioner by outright dismissing the question. They include a small compliment ("that's interesting" or something like that). A flattered person is less likely to be a contentious person.

This gives the impression that the person interviewed is so passionate that they get befuddled and forget to answer the question, but the reality is that this is a studied manipulation technique. It is dishonest on purpose.

Howard Dean even says, "We're too damn honest!" He actually said this in the video. He was talking about the Left when they do not use this technique.

Watch as he explains it. He's actually a good teacher of sleaze.

Now look at modern TV and radio news programs when they interview politicians or people on a mission. If you see a reporter question someone and the person does not answer the question, but uses a transition and goes off on a rant about something else, you are looking at a person who is schooled in sleaze and using it on purpose to manipulate the public.

What's worse, reporters are complicit in this all the time. They allow it to happen. Sometimes they don't, but that is not nearly as often as giving it a pass. I believe most do this because they only have a limited amount of air time available and they feel that they will loose audience by pressing the interviewee to stay on point. But some do it regularly as a way to hide the bias in their reporting.

As a member of the public, I have a suggestion. It's a good idea to make a mental note of people who use this technique--including the reporters who allow it to pass frequently--and treat them accordingly in the future.

One thing is for sure. Instead of a general "you can't trust politicians" kind of feeling, you now will have a conceptual referent. You will be able to say to yourself, ""I don't trust that person because he/she is using a learned evasive manipulation technique--the pivot--on purpose. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears."

This one is easy to catch, too.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Politicians have to memorize their talking points and try to divert the thrust of a reporter’s question to fit what they’ve rehearsed. I recall in the vice presidential debate there was a place where Sarah Palin did this in a particularly ham-handed way.

Howard Dean is certainly a sleaze bag, no question.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

This techniques is sleaze when anyone does it, including Palin.

(And I say that as a supporter of Palin.)

To me, the important part is not to focus on this politician or that, but on the technique itself so you get good at seeing it when it happens. I mentioned Howard Dean because he's the idiot who got caught red-handed teaching it. This could just as easily have been someone from the other side and I would have posted it.

I'm a bit concerned that in our subculture, this kind of thing is constantly brushed aside as not important. This is not necessarily anyone's fault. The literature in our subculture does not talk about these things very much. So ability at recognizing this stuff follows Maslow's normal progression of human learning:

Unconscious Incompetence

Conscious Incompetence

Conscious Competence

Unconscious Competence

In general, from what I have observed, we tend to be in the stage of Unconscious Incompetence on these matters. We don't know and don't even know we don't know.

That makes for vulnerability. This is reflected in some of the more sheep-like following you see in our subculture.

But I believe that most of us have really good minds and souls, so if I can find instances of this manipulation stuff explained in common language, I will post it. The best defense in this case is not necessarily a good offense, but, instead, simply knowing what is happening beneath the surface. Once you see it, you can judge it.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I'm a bit concerned that in our subculture, this kind of thing is constantly brushed aside as not important.

I’m not brushing it aside, it’s just that I’ve had the experience of freezing up while talking extemporaneously with lots of eyeballs on me. So I have sympathy for a candidate who is expected to memorize endless statistics and needs to fit in catch phrases…getting elected is a tough job and takes certain skills. They're not making it up on the spot, and when they try to they get in trouble (ref Obama’s comment on the Special Olympics, and many a Biden-blunder). Bill Clinton was on the Daily Show a couple days ago and Jon Stewart stopped him at one point, after Clinton had just disgorged all kinds of bullshit figures without notes, and said “how do you do that?”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I didn't mean to imply that you were brushing it aside. I just wanted to keep the focus on learning the technique for the reader.

Of course there are instances of people who actually do get tripped up or a variety of reasons and go off on a tangent--even Clinton.

But the video I posted shows clearly that this is a case of Propaganda 101. It is taught. And it is practiced on purpose.

I believe most people will use their common sense to judge whether an interviewee is actually using the technique or is tripped up. Will they err at times? Sure. But I believe in the predominant goodness of people and in their capacity to acquire simple skills of observation if shown what to look for. I think they will get more right than they get wrong.

So I hold it's a good thing for people to be aware of this. That way they can use their own minds rather than be vulnerable to the manipulations of people who are manipulating on purpose.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

In general, from what I have observed, we tend to be in the stage of Unconscious Incompetence on these matters. We don't know and don't even know we don't know.

I disagree, one of the skills I think Atlas Shrugged most consistently imparts to its readers is a new ability to see through politician’s sloganeering.

That makes for vulnerability. This is reflected in some of the more sheep-like following you see in our subculture.

I do think the trend is away from this, the varied response to the Peikoff Ground Zero Mosque podcast and the McCaskey situation shows that even ARIans aren’t sheeple. Not always.

But the video I posted shows clearly that this is a case of Propaganda 101. It is taught. And it is practiced on purpose.

Indeed, by both sides, and it gets results at the ballot box. Reagan was the master at it, his transitions (or deflections) were seamless. What I take away from this is that politics is show business, and MSM appearances are of limited value in evaluating candidates. Dean is teaching these Austrians how to be as ham fisted as Sarah Palin (and himself).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

There's just one thing I want to de-emphasize, since you are making such a point of emphasizing it.

(In fact, this is another rhetorical technique.)

You are making an insinuation that Palin uses this technique as much as Dean does.

Not in the interviews I have seen of both--and I have seen quite a few.

Dean practices this pivot technique much more than Palin does.

I have no problem with disliking Palin, but I am a stickler for facts.

What's the point of smearing by insinuation when it is easily debunked--especially on a board where we are discussing this stuff?

There are plenty of facts floating around that can be used for all kinds of purposes.

My advice is to go after substance and leave this rhetorical stuff to the politicians.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You are making an insinuation that Palin uses this technique as much as Dean does.

Not in the interviews I have seen of both--and I have seen quite a few.

Not necessarily “as much as”, I’d have to watch much more of both of them to judge that (and I’m disinclined), but the case from the VP debate was just as bad as what Dean is teaching. Bad execution of an ubiquitous technique.

Still haven’t seen your report on the Beck rally, did I miss it? You’re right to infer that I dislike Palin, probably about as much as Dean if I could quantify it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Hopefully I finish the Restoring Honor rally report today. It got really big as I went along and I got sidetracked with catching up everything, then with new stuff that keeps cropping up.

There is another point I want to address, though, one where you said you disagreed with me. I want to address it, not because of the disagreement, but because I have thought long an hard about this issue. And the more I study, the more I see a problem.

I am working on how to get manipulation stuff on the table in a manner that is understandable to people impacted by Rand. You said: "... one of the skills I think Atlas Shrugged most consistently imparts to its readers is a new ability to see through politician's sloganeering."

This is true up to a point. Rand was quite good at the philosophical detection stuff.

On the persuasion skill stuff, though, she only addressed this in rhetorical terms or broad terms, not in terms of actual psychological perception. And that is fully half of it, if not more.

For an example of how Rand approached this, there was Toohey's way of organizing seemingly harmless committees and letting them grow before making his power grab move. I just finished reading a biography of Edward Bernays and Toohey's tactic--and the very way Rand portrayed it--is right out of Bernays's play-book. This indicates to me that Rand was familiar with more than just what she learned in Russia. There is some pretty good literature on mass persuasion from the early decades of the twentieth century--even Goebbels in Nazi Germany is on record saying he learned most of his propaganda stuff from it.

In this sense, Rand was also pretty good on showing one of the basic approaches on how to smear someone, and a few other ways to manipulate public messages.

But she shied away when it got to the nitty-gritty of how a person's mind is manipulated subliminally and manipulated through things like pace-pace-lead, vocal inflections, etc. I think actual crowd psychology was even repugnant to her. I have not read any kind of explanation from her about how Hitler managed to enthrall crowds. She had a theory about a wrong psychological idea contaminating a person's mind if it becomes a premise, but that is not much of an explanation.

I recall one place where she got really close to dissecting crowd psychology. It was in Atlas Shrugged at the factory meeting where Galt walked out and started his strike. But she reminded me more of a journalist there than a person who understood crowds and how and why individuals can get caught up in them.

As to psychological triggers, I will only mention one right now. The closest I think she ever got to social proof was her idea of argument from intimidation. Even then, she would claim that a person could become silenced by fear of embarrassment. I doubt she would have gone along with the other half of what actually happens: a person goes along with the crowd because his mind is hardwired to do that.

He needs to resist this urge if he wants to think clearly. Denying the urge or pretending it doesn't exist is not a good way of thinking clearly and independently, irrespective of how much a person recognizes an argument from intimidation when it happens. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing on this urge in Objectivist literature without some kind of moralizing used as an explanation.

Also, people attracted to Rand tend to be individualistic and a bit paranoid about being manipulated. I think this is one of the reasons I don't see much interest in persuasion skills other than basic rhetoric.

I like to look inside myself and recognize when I am emotionally impelled to do things due to psychological triggers. I don't know many people attracted to Objectivism who would be comfortable doing that, since it would indicate a different view of their minds than the ones they hold where they are in complete control. But this makes them extremely vulnerable if you can get an argument couched in terms that align with the philosophy.

Usually, when Objectivists organize to persuade, they do things like write press releases or stage lectures. That's OK, but it doesn't go very far. When they move into more advanced forms of persuasion, they become a disaster. Here's just one example. Take a look at their periodic attempts to skew public popularity polls. Just take a look at Amazon book reviews of literature relating to Objectivism to see what I mean. That's their idea of a persuasion technique.

It's laughable, but there's something worse. It doesn't work. It's only a vanity thing for the people doing it.

This is a long topic and I intend to keep writing about it. But as I said earlier, I am seeking forms of putting actual effective persuasion techniques into plain language with easy-to-learn techniques and patterns that anyone can do. I only see good coming from this.

More as we go along.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the post. I'm not surprised to see politicians being evasive. I would hazard a guess that most reasonably intelligent people can tell when they are doing so. I remember back in college fellow students complaining that the politicians in the debates weren't answering the questions. I think that's when I first became really aware of the fact.

It is surprising, though, to see an old politician teaching younger, less experienced ones how to be evasive in such a blatant fashion. The fact that Dean has a technique called a "pivot" and that he teaching others how to use it is really beyond the pale. This sort of thing should be posted on youtube or be "required viewing" for all young, impressionable voters.

Darrell

[Greybird]

The Pivot was already ancient when Plato alluded to it in Gorgias. It is a rhetorical device. It is neither inherently sleazy nor inherently propagandistic. It is merely a tool to attempt to assert control of the agenda of a discussion.

It can be used to ride roughshod over substantive points, or to allow diverse views to be heard amidst verbal clutter.

And like all rhetorical devices, the technique has little to nothing to do with actually determining whether something is true.

After encountering it in college studies, I first heard of it being described as The Pivot through the capable efforts of two underrated teachers of rhetoric, Marshall Fritz and David Bergland, at the Libertarian Party National Convention in 1987. They're among the un-sleaziest persons ever to engage in politics.

They attributed the name for it to an associate named Ransberger, but as with many aphorisms, it's nearly impossible to track down who had the most to do with thus tagging this device.

Your revulsion is clearly with Howard Dean. I don't blame you. He's a world-class faux-populist manipulator who is adept at coating statism in oh-so-reasonable terms that get past the shallow-thinking.

To rage about a three-thousand-year-old rhetorical device, though? What's the point?

Your continual, unbounded state of surprise, Michael ... well, no longer surprises me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Your presumptuousness... "well, no longer surprises me."

No, my "revulsion" is not with Howard Dean, although I do not like him. How on earth you crawled inside my head, with no indication from my words that this needed doing, saw the shining truth, and then was able to pop back out and tell me what my words really mean never fails to astound me.

(Actually it doesn't, but it feels good to say that. )

You can only do that legitimately when words don't line up with actions or words contradict other words--or there is great suspicion of dishonesty.

And speaking of dishonesty, that is my real "revulsion" (which is the incorrect word anyway--it's more like distaste). My meaning is against intentional dishonesty taught as a tactic. I call it sleaze, which it is.

Can the pivot be used at times for honest means? Sure. If you need to avoid a dangerous malicious trap in front of a crowd, it's a good tool.

But that's not what I was talking about and I suspect you know it. (Actually, I really really really suspect that you know it.)

Let's get back to basics before parading our erudition and cleverness and snobbishness around, shall we?

When someone asks you a question about your views in a public debate where you are before the public precisely to present your views, the honest default thing to do is answer it. And answer it truthfully.

How can that be in question? It's like a no-brainer on this planet.

When someone teaches you a technique to avoid that and says, "We're too damn honest," he is teaching you how to be dishonest. How can that be in question? It can't.

Is Howard Dean the only one in the whole wide world teaching this? In Rand-land maybe, but no, I don't think so. (Actually, I know it's not so since I have a butt-load of study behind my interest in persuasion.)

Dishonesty on purpose with intent to mislead no matter who does it--that's what I am against. And there's more. Our minds get lulled into vulnerable states by rhetoric and that's when these techniques work. Part of what I am doing is showing how this happens. A good shock-video of a popular politician teaching this stuff is a good way to let people know that something is going on they should think about.

I suppose there are people who do not want common everyday folks to think about this stuff, too. I'll let the reader think about why they would not want that. And I'll let the reader decide for himself about why anyone would try to deny that what I am talking about is tactical dishonesty.

One problem I have with many Objectivists is their refusal to look at something obvious right in front of them when it's pointed out to them, while they tell other people what the one pointing out really means. Just like you did right now.

So let me be clear. No, I didn't really mean what you said. I really meant what I said.

Let's up the ante. I stand by what I said in the meaning I meant.

It would have been very easy for you to talk about Plato and all that other stuff without telling me what I really think. But that would have been no fun, right?

It's more fun to be... well... presumptuous. Gosh, that's so clever. Har har har...

Enough of that, though.

I intend to keep teaching these deception techniques to normal people--as I uncover them--so they can easily identify them at the moment they are used. I tell you, that's a hell of a lot more useful to the reader than what you just did.

And then, we shall let them, the readers--not the manipulators and not any pseudo-clever pontificator, decide whether the manipulation they observe is honest or dishonest. Their evaluation will be by their own observation and with their own thinking, not by the manipulator's deception, and by your royal decree. Believe it or not, normal everyday people are very good at thinking when you give them good tools and get out of their way.

That is my intent.

Somehow, I get the feeling that this is nowhere near the ballpark of your intent.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

To rage about a three-thousand-year-old rhetorical device, though? What's the point?

Your continual, unbounded state of surprise, Michael ... well, no longer surprises me.

You make good points, then you append a put-down. I don’t get it, do you want to join and add to the conversation or strut and preen your feathers like a peacock? I think that you feel you’ve given us the last word on the subject, so perhaps the better aviary metaphor would be a seagull.

Back to the Dean video, I watched it again and what I mean by his bad execution is in the examples he gives. If they ask about immigration, say you’re here to talk about jobs. Same sex marriage, no no talk about jobs. Abortion, jobs again. The candidate who tries that is going to look like a fool. Like Dean. I may just spend some time searching YouTube to find an example of Reagan at work using the pivot, he wouldn’t just blatantly change the subject, but would transition out of it into something that played to his strengths, gracefully and with palpable sincerity. Clinton was good too, but added that sleaze factor. Maybe someone can suggest a really good example.

Any comment on my main point? That politicians have rehearsed answers to expected questions and can’t improvise on the spot, so if you ask a question they’re not ready for in a public forum they’re going to substitute with what they have prepared. And try to look good doing it.

[Selene]

Steve:

My my, Plato's Gorgias. Been a while since that was mentioned!

Michael makes a key point about the issue that you raised which supports the argument that the Art of Rhetoric, primarily codified by Aristotle had a purpose in the polity.

As I mentioned on OL numerous times, the Aristotelian concept of Rhetoric being taught to all is to advance the public good. The argument being that if both sides, good and evil have access and knowledge of the same tools, the same argumentation tactics and the same argumentation strategies, the good will win out.

Gorgias, was also a Sicilian philosopher who broke new ground in thought.

He stated that "if things considered [imagined or thought] in the mind are not existent, the existent is not considered" (B3.77), that is to say, existence is incomprehensible. This supposition is backed up by the fact that one can imagine chariots racing in the sea, but that does not make such a thing happen. The operation of the mind (intellection) is fundamentally distinct from what happens in the real world; "the existent is not an object of consideration and is not apprehended" (B3.82). It is helpful to think of apprehension here in Aristotelian terms, as simple apprehension, the first operation of reasoning (logic) in which the intellect "grasps" or "apprehends" something. Simple apprehension happens when the mind first forms a concept of something in the world, and is anterior to judgment."

Finally, Gorgias proclaims that even if existence could be apprehended, "it would be incapable of being conveyed to another" (B3.83). This is because what we reveal to another is not an external substance, but is merely logos (from the Greek verb lego, "to say"–see below). Logos is not "substances and existing things" (B3.84). External reality becomes the revealer of logos (B3.85); while we can know logos, we cannot apprehend things directly. The color white, for instance, goes from a property of a thing, to a mental representation, and the representation is different than the thing itself. In its summation, this nihilistic argument becomes a "trilemma":

i. Nothing exists

ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known

iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.

This argument has led some to label Gorgias as either an ontological skeptic or a nihilist (one who believes nothing exists, or that the world is incomprehensible, and that the concept of truth is fictitious). But it can also be interpreted as an assertion that it is logos and logos alone which is the proper object of our inquiries, since it is the only thing we can really know. On Nature is sometimes seen as a refutation of pre-Socratic essentialist philosophy (McComiskey 37)." http://www.iep.utm.edu/ <<<<Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - nice little resource.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/rand/ <<<<this is their section on Rand, Ayn, Alissa

At any rate, the point that Michael is making is worth remembering. Citizens need to be skilled in Aristotle's definition of Rhetoric in order for them to have the awareness to understand when a public speaker is manipulating them and why they are manipulating them and to what end they desperately desire to manipulate them.

Howard Dean is a despicable human being. Unless that section is taken totally out of context, that is not the way to teach students about civil discourse.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I may just spend some time searching YouTube to find an example of Reagan at work using the pivot, he wouldn't just blatantly change the subject, but would transition out of it into something that played to his strengths, gracefully and with palpable sincerity. Clinton was good too, but added that sleaze factor.

Dennis,

Finding examples of this would be great.

(Even negative examples of Palin using it.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'll bet even a caveman could use this "pivot."

Cavewoman: "Is that a cavebear?"

Caveman: ""I think the cave needs new furniture."

Cavebear: "Yum, yum."

--Brant

Edited September 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[kiaer.ts]

I'll bet even a caveman could use this "pivot."

[Brant Gaede]

You beat me, Ted. There's no topping that.

--Brant

whupped

[Reidy]

How old is the clip? I should think that a Democrat would be doing everything in his power to steer the conversation away from jobs.

[9thdoctor]

He looks like a Heavy Metal screecher in this picture. I bet you could find that pose with Ronnie James Dio singing “The Mob Rules”, it would make a good juxtaposition. It’s on YouTube, but I can’t stand to listen to it; if this was SLOP I might put in the effort just to tick off Jabba.

[kiaer.ts]

He looks like a Heavy Metal screecher in this picture. I bet you could find that pose with Ronnie James Dio singing "The Mob Rules", it would make a good juxtaposition. It's on YouTube, but I can't stand to listen to it; if this was SLOP I might put in the effort just to tick off Jabba.

Please. That looks like an opera singer.

[9thdoctor]

Please. That looks like an opera singer.

I don't think so, besides the microphone is a disqualifier. But for my opposition to Godwin's Law I'd point out who he really looks most like...oh hell, alright here goes:

Just what Austria needs.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[kiaer.ts]

Please. That looks like an opera singer.

I don't think so, besides the microphone is a disqualifier.

Try googling "opera singer" and count the microphones. Dean looks like Mussolini, or Don Giovanni, not Cartman or Shekelgrubber.

[Rich Engle]

"In an age that is utterly corrupt, the best policy is to do as others do."

--Marquis de Sade, 1788

The pivot (and I'm talking about when it is consciously used, of course) is standard toolkit stuff, especially in politics and sales (much the same). There are extremely enhanced versions of it taught in, say, Sandler Sales Training, NLP based sales training, and so on. Ethical? Morally responsible? Uh, that's about like expecting people to adhere to standard boxing rules in a street fight. It's in the "first rule is there are no rules" department. Unfortunately, it is nowadays impossible to enforce the rules of standard debate, especially in political debates: for one thing, the media won't have it because it lacks entertainment value. And, for that matter, it is unlikely the various camps would agree to real debates. No one seems to want it. That was thrown out the window a very long time ago; and anyway, in politics (filthy business that it is) has never been 100% adhered to. When you are trying to get something out of someone, the best way (I'm not saying the morally best way) is to create pain in them. As much as people love and seek pleasure, they will react much more strongly to and flee from pain. I'm being a little tangential here, but that concept falls within what goes on. For instance, it is not so much the pivot itself, but what you are using it for. The strongest use is to pivot and then refocus to the pain (either in the audience, the opponent, or, ideally, both). Sometimes, an irrational blitz attack will get it. Here is an interesting story about LBJ as told by Hunter Thompson to James Carville, in preparation for the Clinton/Bush/Perot debates (taken from his book "Better than Sex/Confessions of a Political Junkie/Trapped Like a Rat in Mr. Bill's Neighborhood). It's about how LBJ first got elected to Congress:

"It goes this way: The year was 1948, as I recall, and Lyndon was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go . . . He was sunk in despair. He was desperate. And it was just before noon on a Monday, they say, when he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference at two or two-thirty (just after lunch on a slow news day) and accuse his high-riding opponent (the pig farmer) of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children . . .

His campaign manager was shocked. 'We can't say that, Lyndon," he said. 'It's not true.'

'Of course it's not,' Johnson barked at him, 'but let's make the bastard deny it.'

It works every time, James--even on smart people. And remember: You are running against (at least) two king-hell Texas politicians who don't mind saying that they didn't get where they are by telling the truth or being nice to people. They have controlled the most powerful office in the history of the world (sic) for 12 years, and they don't want to give it up . . . Shit, why should they? Baker and Bush, between them, have washed enough human blood off their hands to stock the plasma banks of most small-town hospitals, and they are no longer spooked at the smell of it.

They would torture the queen of England for three days and nights to make her say that Bill Clinton raped her repeatedly while he was a student at Oxford and she has many crazed love letters to prove it. They are scum.

By the way, James--Lyndon won that election by something like 44 votes.

So don't let it happen to you. Don't deny anything--especially if they accuse you of fucking pigs.

Just stand up in front of the mike and smile like a champion and tell this good old classic LBJ story . . . It's pure. There's no way to respond to it. Right:: 'What is this, Mr. Bush? More of your sleazy hired gossip? good God, George! How low will you crawl?' Ho, ho."

Edited September 20, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Reidy]

It's an amusing story, and it makes its point, but nobody can take it seriously. Thompson is not a credible source on the political history of the period, and the story just doesn't pass the smell test. By every other account I've seen, Johnson won that election (to the Senate; he was already in the House) by vote fraud, which Thompson alludes to indirectly toward the end.