A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.
Masters of the pithy phrase, the bon mot, are assured of being quoted and discussed. But they are not assured of being persuasive. At times, one does better by supplying the facts sans adjectives and letting one’s audience supply the indignation; by forgoing the insult and sticking to the argument — even when the argument is less colorful and less satisfying to deliver.
How does insult differ from argument? Here are two examples.
The insult. One of the classics was delivered by John Randolph, a brilliant but not tightly wrapped politician, who said of Edward Livingston:
He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.
Randolph also used almost identical words to insult Henry Clay. Remarkably, given the times and his rapier wit, he died of tuberculosis, not a duel. He is not remembered as a consensus builder.
The argument. Writing in The Guardian about the Tories hope to not just defeat but destroy the Labour Party, Matthew d’Ancona observed that the conservatives’ civility toward new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a purpose:
In truth, he looked profoundly vulnerable – as if at any moment the wicked party opposite might huff and puff and blow him over. Clearly, this is no time for Tories freshly stuffed with grouse, bread sauce and game chips to tear into the new leader of the opposition with Bullingdonian brutality. They could do worse, in fact, than to consult the memoirs of the man Cameron and George Osborne still call “the master”. In A Journey, Tony Blair insists that “calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite” is counterproductive. Such charges “don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.”
Sometimes, perhaps ofttimes, the quotability of a leader’s rhetoric is the inverse of its persuasiveness.