 |
| Jim Rhodes |
On May 3, 1970, Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes gave a speech about anti-Vietnam War demonstrations on the Kent State University campus. The next day, May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four students, one of whom was not even involved in the demonstration, and injured several others. Over the years since, we have heard much about the victims' viewpoints. That is only right.
Nevertheless, to understand this horrible event, it is not enough just to study the victims. What values lay behind the violent conservative response? What rhetoric justified that response? We must squarely face the rhetoric that made May 4 possible. As a conservative Republican, Rhodes took a strict law and order stance toward the demonstrators. To accomplish that, Rhodes used two rhetorical techniques that are typical of right-wing rhetoric: he reset the issue in terms of conservative values, while he sought to polarize his audience. My goal is to shed light on how, in retrospect, Rhodes inflamed an already-volatile situation. In the name of social order, Rhodes sought to divide the state of Ohio.
Setting the Values Issues
The demonstrators worked from one set of values, which was to oppose what they believed to be a needless and cruel war. Rhodes’ values instead revolved around the fear of disorder.
The underlying cause of the campus violence was that many students were upset about military conscription combined with President Richard Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia, thus expanding the Indochina war. We might see that Rhodes’ speech brought up a variance in people's values. To Rhodes and his conservative voter base, the issue was not opposition to the war, but rather the preservation of order. It was not a matter of whether the war was right or wrong; indeed, Rhodes never discussed the war at all. The ROTC building on campus had been burned by persons unknown, while local merchants were bitter about ongoing vandalism in downtown Kent, which was only a short walk from campus. The escalation of the war was real. The campus and community violence was real. Which was more important?
To a conservative, maintaining public order becomes the paramount value. Emphasizing that underlying value, Rhodes protested that:
Polarizing the Issues
Indeed, the values of law and order linked directly to his next rhetorical technique, polarization. Polarization occurs when a speaker divides the audience into two categories: good and bad, with no middle ground. Everybody is on one pole or the other. If the speaker had acknowledged any merit whatsoever to the students’ protests, polarization would become impossible. And, yes, Rhodes’ speech was not only one-sided, but extremely polarizing.
So, let us back up and look at how the speech began. Rhodes characterized the demonstrators as:
Indeed, Rhodes insisted that the demonstrators’ only goal was to destroy higher education:
Rhodes warned about the efforts to, as he said, “start taking over communities.” That, of course, tied back to the question of law and order, the ultimate value for conservative rhetoric.
Thus, working from his value premises, with a clear distinction now made between the peaceful community and law enforcement, on the one hand, against the dissidents on the other hand, he had led his audience to a point far beyond compromise or accommodation. There was a battle between good and bad, a battle between order and disorder. Rhodes’ speech left no room for any idea of peace or lawful dissent. Instead, violence and dissent had become mashed together as evil values, to be contrasted with the good values of law enforcement and public order. Accordingly, Rhodes had set up the audience to receive his concluding point, a promise:
No, Rhodes made no attempt to see any side of the issue other than his own. It was never his purpose to lead Ohio into a sense of unity, where the two sides could understand one another. That is not what polarization is about. With polarization, we ultimately have a clash of incompatible values, and the only acceptable solution is for the good values to overcome the bad ones.
Rhodes himself was not solely responsible for the tragedies of May 4. Kent State University’s campus leadership was utterly inept. The guardsmen were poorly trained and badly led. We may never know whether they were ordered to shoot, or by whom. Ultimately, however, May 4 was the result of polarization, with two opposing sides unwilling or unable to see the other’s point of view.
In fact, radical speakers of the left and right alike often try to polarize their audiences precisely to prevent compromise. The polarizing speaker wants to force everyone to vacate the middle ground and choose one side or the other. Such speakers, ultimately, seek neither social order nor agreement. What they seek is division and disorder. Always. Polarization serves no other goal. Many people think that society needs justice and order alike. Yet, polarization stops us from combining justice and order; instead, we are asked to choose.
“… they have threatened and intimidated merchants and people of this community.”He talked about the destruction on campus:
“… you cannot continue to set fires to buildings that are worth $5 and $10 million because you cannot get replacements from the General Assembly.”Rhodes returned to the same theme near the end of the speech:
“… the campus now is going to be part of the County and the State of Ohio. There is no sanctuary for these people to burn buildings down of private citizens—of businesses in a community and then turn into a sanctuary. It's over with in Ohio.”So, mentioning absolutely nothing about the war or the validity of the students’ concerns, Rhodes focused exclusively on the question of maintaining public order. He was right, of course, to the extent that the demonstrations had become violent and there surely was a need to restore order. My point, however, is that this was the only value he discussed. His goal was not to reconcile with dissidents, but to drive them away. This leads us to polarization.
Polarizing the Issues
Indeed, the values of law and order linked directly to his next rhetorical technique, polarization. Polarization occurs when a speaker divides the audience into two categories: good and bad, with no middle ground. Everybody is on one pole or the other. If the speaker had acknowledged any merit whatsoever to the students’ protests, polarization would become impossible. And, yes, Rhodes’ speech was not only one-sided, but extremely polarizing.
So, let us back up and look at how the speech began. Rhodes characterized the demonstrators as:
“probably the most vicious form of campus-oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups and their allies in the state of Ohio.”The words “most vicious,” artfully chosen, place the demonstrators purely on the side of wrongness.
Indeed, Rhodes insisted that the demonstrators’ only goal was to destroy higher education:
“The same group that we're dealing with here today--and there are three or four of them—they only have one thing in mind and that is to destroy higher education in Ohio.”
Even more, Rhodes placed the demonstrators among the most evil of the evil, equating them with the Nazis, communists, and Ku Klux Klan alike:
“They're worse than the 'Brown Shirt' and the communist element and also the 'night riders' in the Vigilantes.”As the speech ended, Rhodes complained again about the violence:
“And last night I think that we have seen all forms of violence—the worst.”That was pure polarization. The demonstrators were not just bad, they were “the worst.” Indeed, Rhodes did not ever call them “demonstrators.” He called them “dissidents.” To a conservative who values social order at all costs, the term “dissidents” depicts the demonstrators as a threat, not only to the campus, but to the orderliness of society.
Rhodes warned about the efforts to, as he said, “start taking over communities.” That, of course, tied back to the question of law and order, the ultimate value for conservative rhetoric.
Thus, working from his value premises, with a clear distinction now made between the peaceful community and law enforcement, on the one hand, against the dissidents on the other hand, he had led his audience to a point far beyond compromise or accommodation. There was a battle between good and bad, a battle between order and disorder. Rhodes’ speech left no room for any idea of peace or lawful dissent. Instead, violence and dissent had become mashed together as evil values, to be contrasted with the good values of law enforcement and public order. Accordingly, Rhodes had set up the audience to receive his concluding point, a promise:
“to use every part of the law enforcement agencies of Ohio to drive them out of Kent.”For, if we face a polarized battle between good and evil, banishing evil becomes our only choice.
No, Rhodes made no attempt to see any side of the issue other than his own. It was never his purpose to lead Ohio into a sense of unity, where the two sides could understand one another. That is not what polarization is about. With polarization, we ultimately have a clash of incompatible values, and the only acceptable solution is for the good values to overcome the bad ones.
Rhodes himself was not solely responsible for the tragedies of May 4. Kent State University’s campus leadership was utterly inept. The guardsmen were poorly trained and badly led. We may never know whether they were ordered to shoot, or by whom. Ultimately, however, May 4 was the result of polarization, with two opposing sides unwilling or unable to see the other’s point of view.
In fact, radical speakers of the left and right alike often try to polarize their audiences precisely to prevent compromise. The polarizing speaker wants to force everyone to vacate the middle ground and choose one side or the other. Such speakers, ultimately, seek neither social order nor agreement. What they seek is division and disorder. Always. Polarization serves no other goal. Many people think that society needs justice and order alike. Yet, polarization stops us from combining justice and order; instead, we are asked to choose.
And the Aftermath...
On a personal note, I lived in Kent from 1985 to 2005. It's a wonderful community with a remarkable regional university. I did much of my academic research (click William D. Harpine’s Publications above) in Kent State’s enormous library. Even so, many years later, the campus and the community remain bitterly divided. It is, of course, no secret that our nation never fully reconciled after the Vietnam War. So, in 1970, with the demonstrators believing that the war was a monstrous evil, while Ohio’s conservatives felt that social order was far more important than peace, how could anyone expect them to reconcile? How were they to recognize their common humanity? As time goes by and we face comparable questions over and over and over, polarizing rhetoric will never help us answer them.
___________________
Jerry M. Lewis’ Speech about the Kent State Shootings
Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech: Rhetoric of Polarization
On a personal note, I lived in Kent from 1985 to 2005. It's a wonderful community with a remarkable regional university. I did much of my academic research (click William D. Harpine’s Publications above) in Kent State’s enormous library. Even so, many years later, the campus and the community remain bitterly divided. It is, of course, no secret that our nation never fully reconciled after the Vietnam War. So, in 1970, with the demonstrators believing that the war was a monstrous evil, while Ohio’s conservatives felt that social order was far more important than peace, how could anyone expect them to reconcile? How were they to recognize their common humanity? As time goes by and we face comparable questions over and over and over, polarizing rhetoric will never help us answer them.
___________________
Jerry M. Lewis’ Speech about the Kent State Shootings
Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech: Rhetoric of Polarization
___________________
Research note: to read more about the rhetoric of polarization, the standard source is The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, by John Waite Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz.
Image from the Fremont News Messenger, in Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center (via Wikimedia Commons, public domain)
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment