Branded Stance-Taking in US Electoral Politics1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Sociolinguistics 13/2, 2009: 223–248 On ‘flip-flopping’: Branded stance-taking in U.S. electoral politics1 Michael Lempert Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. This article examines stance in U.S. political discourse, taking as its empirical point of departure Democratic candidate John Kerry’s epistemic stance- taking in the televised 2004 presidential debates. Kerry’s stance-taking is shown to help display the characterological attribute of ‘conviction’ and serve as a rejoinder to critics who had branded him as a ‘flip-flopper.’ His stance-taking is thus not primarily ‘to’ or ‘for’ copresent interactants, but is largely interdiscursive in character. ‘Conviction’ and its opposite, ‘flip- flopping,’ suggest further how stance-taking itself has been an object of typification in the agonistic dynamics of candidate branding and counter- branding. In moving from epistemic stance-taking in discourse to models of the stance-taker as a social type, this article addresses questions about the units and levels of analysis needed to study stance in contemporary political discourse. KEYWORDS: Stance, politics, interdiscursivity, branding, debate, addressivity CHERYL OTIS: Senator Kerry, after talking with several co-workers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for you, ‘Why?’ They said that you were too wishy-washy. Do you have a reply for them? JOHN KERRY: Yes, I certainly do. ((laughter)) (8 October, 2004. Second presidential debate, held at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri) REMINISCING KERRY Presidential elections in the United States are preceded by ‘primary’ elections, in which the two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans, permit voters to narrow the field of candidates through a series of state-based elections and intra-party caucuses.2 On 30 October 2007, more than two months before the primaries began, the Democratic Party staged a televised debate in Philadelphia for seven of its candidates, which included front-runner New York Senator Hillary Clinton. At a certain moment, Clinton is pressed about her view on Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer’s beleaguered proposal to issue driver’s C The author 2009 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA 224 LEMPERT licenses to illegal immigrants. ‘It makes a lot of sense,’ she had recently said of his plan in the state of New Hampshire.3 But to the debate’s co-moderator Tim Russert her response is measured, two parts sympathy (‘...what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum’), one part disapproval (‘...we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap’). Senator Chris Dodd, one of the seven candidates on stage, takes up her sympathy as tacit agreement with Spitzer and Clinton swiftly corrects him: ‘I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.’ With this John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama begin the evening’s grating refrain: that Clinton is inconsistent, that her inconsistency bespeaks a lack of conviction.Inpost-debatecoverageonthepoliticaltalk-showHardball,JoeTrippi, Senior Strategist for the Edwards Campaign, ratchets up the criticism, attributing Clinton’s shifting positions to whether she is in ‘primary mode or general election mode’ and predicting that her position will change again once she speaks with her consultants (msnbc.com 2007). It was left to the commentariat to name the charge against Clinton, as editorialist Michael Graham (2007) of the Boston Herald does in an uncharitable opinion piece published two days after the debate: Hillary Rodham Clinton may have achieved the politically impossible: She has managed to out-Kerry John Kerry himself. Sen. Flip-Flop, you recall, famously claimed that, on the issue of funding U.S. troops, he voted ‘for the $87 billion before I voted against it.’ Clinton, on the other hand, managed to declare herself both for and against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens at the same time. When it comes to illegal immigration, Hillary is FORGAINST! Likened to the unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, Clinton is cast as a ‘flip-flopper,’ a pejorative term for a politician who is ‘pandering, poll watching or abandoning long-held views for short-term political gain’ (Schulman 2007). In the days and weeks that followed, the trade in accusations of flip-flopping quickened, enough for New York Times commentator Rutenberg to call this the ‘season of the “flip-flop”’ on 4 November, or as Reuter’s Holland (2007) augured back in June, ‘It’s the year of the flip-flop in U.S. politics.’ A few observations: a candidate’s infelicitous stance-taking on an ‘issue’ (from dysfluencies to excessive qualification to the extreme of self-contradiction) is read in terms of addressivity (Bakhtin 1986: 95), indicating the speaker’s alleged ‘orientation’ to certain absent others (segments of the electorate being courted, as Trippi suggested); addressivity, in turn, is said to reveal characterological attributes of the speaker (lack of conviction); and having such attributes identifies the speaker as a social type (flip-flopper). This post-debate commentary moves fluidly from discourse to addressivity to characterological attributes to figures of politicians – a long, sinuous route that the literature on ‘stance’ should find ways to follow. This essay follows this route by returning to Kerry, to certain moments in the fraught electoral contest of late 2004 when Kerry tried to counter the charge of flip-flopping by performing its characterological C The author 2009 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 BRANDED STANCE-TAKING 225 antithesis, ‘conviction.’ Kerry achieves this self-presentational feat partly by way of epistemic stance-taking in key moments of the first presidential debate with Republican incumbent George W. Bush. His epistemic stance-taking offers an opportunity to address questions about the units and levels of analysis necessary for the study of stance-taking in political communication. First, understanding these moments requires an appreciation of the ‘interdiscursivity’ of stance, of the way events of epistemic stance-taking seem to extend ‘beyond’ the immediate, here-and-now speech event. Second, both ‘conviction’ and its opposite, ‘flip- flopping’ – the charge that Kerry struggled with in 2004 and that has enjoyed tremendous play in the 2007–2008 election season – are reflexive typifications of stance-taking behavior (‘reflexive,’ in the broad sense of ‘activities in which communicative signs are used to typify other perceivable signs’ [Agha 2007: 16]). This fact alone exposes a lacuna in the stance literature – the neglect of reflexivity, which includes the way people talk about and typify the stance-taking subject itself. The preoccupations with conviction and flip-flopping suggest how the stance-taking subject is a sociohistorical artifact conditioned partly by reflexive activity, in this case, by activity involving candidate branding. STANCE BEYOND THE SPEECH EVENT ‘Stance’ has often meant speaker-based evaluations of the propositional content expressed by an utterance4 – ‘the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message,’ as Biber and Finegan (1989) suggested some two decades ago. A concern with stance, so defined, can be sensed in a range of literatures of late, from work on ‘evaluation’ (Hunston and Thompson 2000) and ‘assessments’ (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992; Heritage and Raymond 2005; Goodwin 2006) to the literature on epistemic modalization and evidentiality. Equally prevalent are construals of ‘stance’ not as speaker-based orientations toward propositional content but as orientations toward other (typically co-present) interactants (Ochs 1992; Goodwin 1998; Goodwin, Goodwin and Yaeger-Dror 2002; Kiesling 2005; see also Goffman 1981). Agha (2007) captions such a divide elegantly with his distinction between ‘propositional stance’ and ‘interactional stance.’ Though variously named and perhaps even more variously conceived, Du Bois (2007) sees order in this heterogeneity. He consolidates these literatures and outlines a conception of the stance act as multiplex, as triadic in particular. A ‘triune’ act or ‘tri-act,’ stance-taking involves three interrelated events: ‘In taking a stance, the stancetaker: (1) evaluates an object; (2) positions a subject (usually the self); and (3) aligns with other subjects’ (Du Bois 2007: 163). Du Bois (2007: 163) sees the three as ‘subsidiary acts of a single overarching, unified stance act’ and envisions them together geometrically as a ‘stance triangle’. Like others, Du Bois pushes past sentence-sized units, which had been the maximal unit for the study of the linguistic expression of stance. In Karkk¨ ainen’s¨ (2003) corpus-based study of epistemic stance in English, she charts and celebrates this C The author 2009 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 226 LEMPERT discursive turn (see Englebretson 2007), which no longer privileges ‘individual speakers and single turns as loci of pragmatic meaning’ (Karkk¨ ainen¨ 2003: 22), as earlier speech-act-oriented research on epistemic stance had done. Approached as an activity, stance is found in diverse unit-types and may be signaled through various semiotic modalities, including facial gesturing, bodily orientation,