INTRODUCTION



Ross Perot’s 1992 Presidential Campaign: A Lesson in Rhetoric and Politics

Ross McFerron

December 2, 2003

UI 425 - Persuasion

INTRODUCTION

For many people, hearing the name Ross Perot conjures up memories of a small, big eared man who fumbled through a number of his speeches and couldn’t determine, in his own mind, whether or not he wanted to run for President of the United States. He is less often remembered as the individual who “won” the first Presidential debate according to most observers and who received 19 percent of the national vote in 1992, the most by an individual outside the two major parties since 1912 (Jelen, 2001). For those interested in politics more specifically, Perot is the object of frequent study. However, most studies involving Perot involves his success as it relates to third parties in American politics. For our purposes, however, we examine lessons that can be learned from Perot’s rhetorical and persuasive tactics in his 1992 campaign which can be utilized by political candidates of all parties and affiliations. Specifically, Ross Perot’s use of two persuasive tactics, humor and logical appeal, will be examined.

ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE

HUMOR

McCluhan and Fiore explain that humor, “as a system of communications and as a probe of our environment – of what’s really going on – affords us our most appealing anti-environmental tool…and that it is often the best guide to changing perceptions” (1967). Clearly, many politicians would agree with this rationale, as nearly all of them attempt to use humor at some point in time. In a number of cases, the best politicians are those who use humor not just to gain a good laugh, but to make a point persuasively. This is an attainable goal, as past studies have found that when speakers utilize humor in their speech, they are generally granted greater credibility by their audience (Gruner, 1967). Because of this known study, many politicians include humor in speeches, believing that it will enhance their persuasiveness (Meyer, 1990).

There are a number of theories regarding the use of humor, specifically as it relates to persuasiveness. For the purposes of providing a framework to evaluate Ross Perot’s use of humor, we will focus on three main theories of humor: the relief theory, the incongruity theory, and the superiority theory. Many of Perot’s uses of humor closely resemble one of these three major theories.

The relief theory is based on a psychological perspective, which holds that humor, through laughter, actually allows a release of “nervous energy,” and thus, humor is usually created by a “reduction of anxiety or a relaxation of strain” (Meyer, 1990). Accordingly, the use of humor can function to lighten the mood of an event or speaking engagement by helping to relax the listener or put the audience at ease. In normal speaking conditions, this use of humor is very common. Beginning a speech with a funny story or joke is an example of utilizing the relief theory, and it is common in civic speeches and religious messages or sermons. The ability to link Perot’s humor to the relief theory is limited. However, some of his humor did provide mild relief from more serious situations, such as a Presidential debate.

Many of Perot’s uses of humor fall mostly within the realm of humor that is the incongruity theory. In sum, an incongruity results in laughter due to a violation of expectations. Initial “shock” is translated into “insight,” which is used to persuade. Thus, effective use of surprise is normally the key to successfully using humor under this theory (Grimes, 1955 and Meyer, 1990). For humor to work in this context, a number of things must occur, particularly within the minds of the audience. According Levassuer and Dean, humor must contain a notable incongruity, the audience must be able to solve the incongruity, and the humor must not generate too much audience anxiety (1996). A commonly cited example of a political figure’s use of humor with incongruity involved Robert Kennedy and his answer to a question posed by the press. In 1964, reporters asked him how he would feel about a Johnson/Kennedy presidential ticket. The assumption here was that Kennedy would be running for Vice-President under Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy, however, responded with, “I’d be willing, but I’m not sure that Mr. Johnson would accept the vice presidency (Gardner, 1986). Here, Kennedy’s response was definitely a surprise which translated into humor for the audience.

The final theory of humor as it relates to persuasiveness is the superiority theory. Superiority theory deals with humor as if it is like a game. The speaker uses humor to make either him or his audience feel “superior” to other individuals or groups (often opponent candidates). This is used frequently in the context of political debates. In an essence, one candidate scores, his opponent loses, and the audience wins (Gruner, 1997). Many humor theorists believe all forms of humor exhibit some sort of “superiority” of one individual, object, or idea over another and as a result, that all uses of humor can at least somewhat be traced to this theory. Ross Perot utilized this method often by channeling his humor in a way that made him and his supporters seem superior with the “out of touch” establishment in Washington D.C.

While Ross Perot was relatively funny throughout most of his campaign for President, his most memorable humor occurred during the presidential debates. During these debates, he did not waste time in taking advantage of his unique wit. In the first question directed toward him during the first debate, Perot was asked to respond to criticism that his inexperience would hurt him if elected president. Perot’s immediate response was a classic example of using an incongruity to produce laughter and to effectively persuade an audience. He answered:

Well, they've got a point. I don't have any experience in running up a $4 trillion debt. I don't have any experience in gridlock government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and everybody blames everybody else. I don't have any experience in creating the worst public school system in the industrialized world, but I do have a lot of experience in getting things done. So, if we're at a point in history where we want to stop talking about it and do it, I've got a lot of experience in figuring out how to solve problems, making the solutions work, and then moving on to the next one. I've got a lot of experience in not taking 10 years to solve a 10-minute problem. So, if it's time for action, I think I have experience that counts. If there's more time for gridlock and talk and finger pointing, I'm the wrong man (PBS, 1992).

Here, most in the audience expected Perot to defend himself by saying his experience was sufficient for the office of president. Perot’s first sentence is clearly a surprise for most viewers, creating the kind of “shock” that was mentioned in examining the relevant research above. However, after producing a sort of initial surprise, this statement still made it easy for the audience to resolve the incongruity and to translate it into an insight that was persuasive. Perot’s message was that in many ways, experience was the problem in our nation’s capital and that experience without progress shouldn’t be an advantage in an election campaign.

In a number of cases, Perot also utilized the superiority theory of humor effectively. Frequently, he attempted to portray himself and the “American people” as being superior to those in Washington, who were the objects of his jokes. At one point, also during the first debate, he described what would occur in Washington, D.C. if he was elected.

If the American people send me (to the Whitehouse), we'll get it done. Now, everybody will faint in Washington. They've never seen anything happen in that town.

This is a town where the White House says, Congress did it; Congress says the White House did it. And I'm sitting there and saying, well, who else could be around, you know? Then when they get off by themselves, they say nobody did it. And yet the cash register's empty and it used to have our money, the taxpayers' money, in it, and we didn't get the results. No, we'll get it done (PBS, 1992).

This passage was effective in vilifying those in Washington, namely the two main political parties, by showing their ineffectiveness and nervousness displayed toward change or progress. In the context of humor, however, Perot’s remarks seem less harsh, which makes them much more successful. Perot also utilizes vivid language to make his humor more effective, particularly within the context of coming across as “superior” to his competition:

Now, all these fellows with thousand-dollar suits and alligator shoes running up and down the halls of Congress that make policy now -- the lobbyists, the PAC guys, the foreign lobbyists, and what-have-you, they'll be over there in the Smithsonian, you know -- because we're going to get rid of them, and the Congress will be listening to the people. And the American people are willing to have fair, shared sacrifice. They're not as stupid as Washington thinks they are (PBS, 1992).

Perot’s use of language here is superior to, and much funnier than, other sentences he could have used to portray the same basic message. Rather than saying, “The people that influence Congress now will be gone and the politicians will listen to the citizens,” he gave a much more vivid description. Indeed, vivid imagery is usually more persuasive than normal, everyday language because it captures our attention and aids us in using our imagination to visualize that which is “emotionally interesting” and “proximate in a sensory, temporal, or spatial sort of way” (Nisbett, 1980).

Finally, the most memorable use of humor by the third party candidate during his campaign was his famous assertion that he was “all ears.” Specifically Perot, while talking about his plan to increase taxes and cut spending to balance the budget, said, “We’ve got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape, and pass on the American dream to (young people). We’ve got to collect taxes to do it. If there’s a fairer way, I’m all ears” (PBS, 1992). In this quote, it appears that Perot may have only used the humor to allow people to laugh at him. However, if viewed in the correct context, his humor can be seen as much more powerful. In fact, it can be argued that Perot successfully applied the relief theory of humor by putting the audience at ease and allowing them to laugh following a very serious recommendation that no politician likes to make – a tax increase. It clearly lightened the mood of the debate for a brief moment, and by doing so added credibility to his viewpoint.

In describing Perot’s use of humor, one final note must be made. Humor can, if used incorrectly, pass through a certain “bounds of severity” and cause the audience to actually have a lower sense of credibility toward the humorist. One way to alleviate that problem is for a candidate to demonstrate “implicit or explicit goodwill for their victims” (Levesseur, 1997). Tonn and Endress, in their evaluation of Perot’s use of incongruity and humor, claim that Perot successfully avoided being perceived as too severe by assuring his audience that “the people in Washington are good people,” and were simply victim of a “bad system” (2001). Indeed, Perot did implement this successfully, which allowed him to achieve the purposes he had set for using humor as a persuasive tactic. Friedenberg, in his criticism of Perot, concurs, arguing that Perot’s “use of humor softened his aggressiveness, while dramatizing the points he was making,” and stated that “in sum, Perot debated impressively.” Friedenberg utilizes a criticism that Perot made toward Bill Clinton to demonstrate this point. In the example, Perot states that calling Clinton’s stint as Governor of Arkansas sufficient experience for the presidency was equal to arguing that running a small grocery store on the corner qualifies one to manage a Wal-Mart (1994). Here, Perot clearly used humor to both soften and strengthen his personal attack on Clinton. It was softer because Perot was able to make the point without coming across as overly aggressive, and it was stronger because his use of humor made it more memorable.

In sum, Perot’s use of humor was very effective, and allowed him to direct tough comments toward the Washington establishment while at the same time remaining a likeable candidate. Had he not employed humor to criticize that which he viewed as “politics as usual,” he could may have enjoyed much less success.

LOGICAL APPEAL AND CENTRAL PROCESSING

While Perot’s use of humor as a persuasive tactic was fruitful, it was clearly not sufficient to convince many voters to throw their support to a third party candidate, who throughout most of the campaign was an obvious long shot to win election. To prevent the feeling among voters that he was simply a plain-talking comedian, Perot was also forced to appeal to the electorate with logical arguments and persuasive techniques. As Perot demonstrated, logic and humor can be a rather successful combination, with humor working to enhance the credibility of logical arguments, and vice-versa.

Aristotle, around 330 B.C., perhaps first led us to the importance of logic as a form of persuasion by claiming it was one of three umbrellas that all forms of arguments fell under. Aside from ethical or credibility appeals and emotional appeals, Aristotle described “logos” or logical appeals, saying they were “contained in the speech itself when a real or apparent truth is demonstrated” (Freese, 1926). Further study on persuasion and its relation to logic has also given us a number of more descriptive and detailed theories than Aristotle’s view, including the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, which we shall examine here.

In this theory, Petty and Cacioppo emphasize the presence of two distinct routes of persuasion, central and peripheral. The peripheral route tends to be based more upon emotion and can result due to “some simple cue in the persuasion context” such as an attractive source. The central route to persuasion, however, occurs due to a “person’s careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy.” Based upon their research, it was found that persuasion which relies on the central route tends to be the most enduring (1986). Other researchers have agreed to this model as well stating that attitude changes which occur because the audience reflects upon and accepts logical arguments should persist longer and resist counter-persuasion more than a seemingly “superficial” reflection (Benoit, 2003).

This research lends itself well to explaining some of Perot’s tactics as a unique third party candidate who recognized that in order to obtain votes, he had to be able to overcome a number of obstacles, such as the feeling that a vote for him would be a wasted vote and that his political experience was lacking, as well as the natural tendency of people to wish to avoid large and unpredictable change.

Perot’s initial use of logical appeal may have been less intensive that it should have been. However, late in the campaign, he used two main strategies that are consistent with the central route of persuasion. First, he published a book, United We Stand, detailing his perceptions of the problems in Washington and in its pages provided a bulleted list of his solutions and explanations for the solutions. He used numbers, stories, charts, and graphs to prove his point regarding the problems and to support his argument for a solution. In talking about the federal budget deficit, he outlined the $4 billion shortfall, and explained that eliminating the entire Department of Defense would not be sufficient in balancing the budget (Perot, 1992). After selling the nation’s problems to the reader, Perot then shows graphs to illustrate the problem further and then offers solutions which, at least in his mind logically follow, such as requiring all federal departments to submit budgets that cut discretionary funding by 15 percent and enacting the line-item veto to allow the President to cut wasteful spending attached to otherwise good bills (Perot, 1992).

In using his book to formulate logical appeals to the electorate, Perot also takes advantage of metaphors, another rhetorical technique. These metaphors serve to place the arguments in the context of everyday situations. At one point, Perot compares the national debt to “a crazy aunt we keep down in the basement,” because the neighbors “know she is there, but nobody wants to talk about her” (Perot, 1992). The use of metaphors is common in Presidential elections, partly because they can influence voter perceptions about the world and assist them in interpreting the candidates, their words, or their policy proposals (Benoit, 2001).

Perot also used unique “infomercials,” or 30 and 60 minute long advertisements, to persuade potential voters via the central route. The commercials explained many of the ideas relayed in his book and, with the aid of his nearly two-dozen flip charts and metal pointer, also proposed higher taxes which he claimed would actually save tax payers money in the long run (Nordin, 2001; Rosenstiel, 1994). Very importantly, these infomercials were unlike most political advertising because they appeared to respect the intelligence of the voters in America and their ability to understand serious problems our country was facing (Loevy, 1995). At the least, the infomercials were successful at the in attracting a large audience. The first one attracted the attention of 8.3 million households, which was less than only one other network program in the same timeslot (Herbert, 1992).

The combination of Perot’s use of logical appeals in his book, the infomercials, and in the presidential debates was effective. Columnist Mark Shields correctly summed up much of Perot’s appeal to voters immediately following the first debate on PBS’s Newshour. He said:

I think Ross Perot did something last night that nobody's done in this campaign…Ross Perot treated voters like grown-ups. Ross Perot actually was asked about a tax increased that he's endorsed. He not only admitted he'd endorsed it. He defended it…And I think he is sort of the personification of what people don't like about the opposite of what people don't like about politics. He's not a professional politician… he's a guy who talks about what people are worried about…I think he's addressing real things. It's more than just one-liners (Reaction, 1992).

Shields’s argument does hold tremendous merit. Comments by focus group participants following the election point toward similar conclusions and survey results also back up his claim. One non-Perot supporter said, in describing the infomercials, that while he wasn’t going to vote for Perot, his “presentation …I thought was outstanding. And I’m frankly getting tired of Americans being treated like we’re a bunch of idiots (who) can’t figure out what’s going on” (Tonn, 2001). In addition, 59 percent of the electorate surveyed said they believed that there was a greater focus on the issues in 1992 due in part to Perot’s participation and 77 percent said they had learned enough about the candidates’ positions to make an informed decision. In the previous election, that number was only 59 percent (’92 Voters, 1992).

All of these numbers, along with focus group results and Shield’s assertion, lead us to the question of why Perot’s use of logic was at least in part successful. Clearly, Perot’s logic did appeal to a number of voters and he was able to effectively use the central route to persuasion described in the elaboration likelihood model to obtain lasting support. Just as affective as the content and results of his logic, however, may have been the appeal that he was simply the only candidate that was using logic regularly, the only candidate that was actually showing respect for the intelligence of the voters. Perot himself attempted to use this to persuade, urging voters to “look for a candidate that talks to you as adults; that talks to you as thinking, reasoning people and doesn’t assume that he can buy your vote with your money” (Tonn, 2001). Regardless of why the logical appeal was successful, however, Perot was able to combine it with, among other tactics, his use of humor, to obtain a relatively large percent of the vote for a third party candidate.

CONCLUSION

Despite being a third party candidate who mistakenly dropped out of the race for a short time, and despite not carrying a single state in the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot did have relatively unheard of success. Despite being described as fumbling, amateurish, awkward, odd-looking, whiny, and cold by critics and journalists (Shales, 1992; Fessenden, 1992), much can be learned from Perot’s use of humor and logical appeal to persuade voters in an election. He employed humor, in a variety of methods, which fell within the realm of each of three established theories of humor as persuasion. This use of humor not only enhanced his credibility, but also served to lessen any detrimental perception that could have resulted due to his negative comments about his opponents. He also used logical appeal and the central route of persuasion to both influence the attitude of the electorate and demonstrate to American voters that he believed in their ability to make sound decisions regarding the future of their country. While Perot may go down in history as the last place finisher in a three way race, politicians of all parties, as well as communicators of all kinds, can learn from Perot’s tactics.

Works Cited

Relevant Contextual Information

’92 voters felt better informed. (16 Nov. 1992) San Fransisco Chronicle. A4.

Herbert, S. (20 Oct. 1992) Perot infomercials win strong ratings. The Los Angeles Times. 19.

Jelen, T.G. (2001) The Perot campaigns in theoretical perspective. In T.G. Jelen (Ed.), Ross for boss. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Loevy, R.D. (1995) The flawed path to the presidency 1992. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nordin, K.D. (2001) The television candidate. In T.G. Jelen (Ed.), Ross for boss. Albany: State University of New York Press.

PBS 1992 presidential debates transcripts. (1992) Retrieved October 22, 2003 from .

Perot, R. (1992) United we stand: How we can take back our country. New York: Hyperion.

Rosenstiel, T. (1994) Strange bedfellows: How television and the presidential candidates changed American politics, 1992. New York: Hyperion.

Relevant Scholarship

Benoit, W.L. (2003) Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive approach to rhetorical theory and criticism. Communication studies. Vol. 54, Iss. 1.

Benoit, W.L. (2001) Framing through temporal metaphor: The bridges of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in their 1996 acceptance addresses. Communication studies. Vol. 52, Iss. 1.

Freese, J.H. (1926) Aristotle with an English translation: The art of rhetoric. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gardner, G. (1986) All the presidents’ wits: The power of presidential humor. New York: Beech Tree.

Grimes, W.H. (1955). The mirth of experience in public address. Communication monographs. Vol. 22.

Gruner, C. R. (1997) A rejoinder to Levasseur and Dean on ‘The Dole humor myth.’ The southern communication journal. Vol. 62, Iss. 2.

Gruner, C.R. (1967) Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal of communication. Vol. 17.

Levasseur, D.G. & Dean, K.W. (1996) The Dole humor myth and the risks of recontextualizing rhetoric. The southern communication journal. Vol. 62, Iss. 1.

Levasseur, D.G. & Dean, K.W. (1997) Accounting for Dole’s humor in the 1976 vice presidential debate: A response to Gruner’s rejoinder. The southern communication journal. Vol. 62, Iss. 3.

McLuhan, M & Fiore, Q. (1967) The Medium is the massage. New York: Random House.

Meyer, J. (1990) Ronald Reagan and humor: A politician’s velvet weapon. Communication studies. Vol. 41, Iss. 1.

Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980) Human interface: Strategies and shortcoming in social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Relevant Criticism

Fessenden, F. (2 Nov. 1992) What a long, strange trip it’s been. Newsday.

Friedenberg, R.V. (1994) The 1992 presidential debates. In R.E. Denton (Ed.), The 1992 presidential campaign.

Shales, T. (28 Oct. 1992) Perot’s infomercials a hit networks get the message. San Francisco chronicle. E1.

Reaction to the first presidential debate: MacNiel/Leher Newshour, PBS, October 12 1992 transcripts. Retrieved October 23, 2003 from .

Tonn, M.B. & Endress, V.A. (2001) Looking under the hood and tinkering with voter cynicism: Ross Perot and “perspective by incongruity.” Rhetoric & public affairs. Vol. 4 No. 2.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download