I Will Destroy You! 
Take their latest for example...
A recent study backed by 50 years of research found as one of its conclusions, that "George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."
Not surprisingly, the GOP didn't appreciate that finding a whole lot, so they went straight to work in their newest battle in the Republican War on Science:
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he... ...questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that [Researchers] Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.
Did you see that? So quick! So smooth! In a single breath, Brian Jones undermined the perceived credibility of not only this extensive study, but also the prior 50 years of associated research.
You have to respect that political skill and deflective grace.
"If you want to destroy a message then destroy the messenger."
Technique: When accused, berated or maligned, attack the messengers. It doesn't matter if they're message is accurate or not, just attack. Attack their credibility. Attack their character. Attack their ideology. Attack their sources. Attack their associations. Whatever. Just attack.
If you take the bait and start debating the veracity or even the necessity of the message content, you risk highlighting the message -- and thus risk harm upon yourself. The idea is to avoid a confrontation and erect a cloud of uncertainly surrounding any message that would likely inflict damage upon your credibility and/or reputation if left to fester in the imaginations of the public.
Setup: When bad news arrives there is rage, sorrow, frustration -- you name it. Since we are all human, we need an outlet for these stressful creations. Being creatures of convenience, it is easiest to expunge our grief on whom else but... the messenger.
This also serves as theater for onlookers. Indeed, the tactic is only useful if it is for the 'benefit' of those observing the debate. The messenger will always know better.
Reasoning: In addition, When it comes to getting your point across, beating the messenger silly is also a splendid way to distract onlookers. It's an effective method for taking the attention off the nasty message being put forth by your opponent and placing it squarely on the misgivings of this (now highly dubious) messenger.
One Liner: "Your character is highly suspect. How could anyone possibly believe the nonsense that comes out of your mouth?" - back this up with an example of how the messenger's character is 'highly suspect' if you have one. In the above example, the researcher's character was questioned because they allegedly gave money to the GOP's opposition. The political left also implements this tactic when various studies are funded by industries that benefit from the study's findings. (To my knowledge, no Democrats have funded the 50 years of research that suggests that racists are more likely to vote Republican.)
Of course you should paraphrase this to fit the situation and the messenger. Note that the aspect of the messenger being attacked need not have anything to do with the message itself (or even be true for that matter) to be effective. (Remember, I learned this from Republicans. You can clean it up as your conscience dictates.)
For example:
"Okay, when you finally conquer that crack addiction, then maybe someone will take you seriously on the state of the economy."
or
"You've lost every election in which you've ever run, thus, you have no credibility regarding foreign policy -- and certainly have nothing to say about my views on the subject."
Mock Power: The greater the degree of mocking in your attack, the more effective it is and the less it matters that the attack is not relevant to the message being delivered.
More Example one liners:
"You served time as a convicted felon. Who knows what lies you're capable of."
"Yeah right. This is coming from a guy who reads his horoscope to see what to have for breakfast."
* "Now, did you come to this conclusion before or after you were AWOL from the National Guard?"
Defense Against this Tactic: Claim loudly and succinctly that your opponent's attempts to 'destroy the messenger' are a desperate attempt to cover up his own improprieties... and that his lack of refutation regarding the message itself is supreme evidence that the message is in fact true.
If the recipient of the message attacks you, claim that he or she is trying to 'cover-up' whatever it is that the message has revealed (the cover-up is almost always worse than the deed itself). Thus, the message recipient has no credibility. Never has. Never will.
As the messenger, never address the specific attacks leveled by the recipient of the message against you -- except to say that they are all blatant LIES. The message is all about them and it is up to you to keep the focus on them.
SUMMARY: If the message is negative, attack the messenger.
KEYWORDS: Tactics, Racism, Republicans
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < SOTU: Two Views | This is What Bush's SOTU Should Have Said about Energy Independence > |
