Ernest Bormann and the Republicans

Some political observers express dismay that in the face of electoral losses and increasing political isolation the Republican Party continues to act in ways that may cost it electorally and further isolate the Party. That the Republican Party is acting in apparently self-destructive ways should not be surprising – and there is a strong argument that it will get worse for the Party before it gets better. At the same time, the Democrats are doomed to the same eventual fate.

Rhetorical scholar Ernest Bormann (1925 – 2008) identified a four-step process for explanatory frameworks, or as he labeled them, rhetorical visions. For Bormann, a rhetorical vision “is a unified putting-together of the various scripts which gives the participants a broader view of things…When a rhetorical vision emerges, the participants in the vision…come to form a rhetorical community.” (The Force of Fantasy: Restoring the American Dream, 1985, see also “An Expansion of the rhetorical vision component of the symbolic convergence theory: The cold war paradigm case”, Ernest Bormann, John Cragan and Donald Shields, Communication Monographs, 1996, Vol. 63 No. 1, pg.1).

For Bormann (and others) language helps us make sense of our world. Words, symbols, metaphors and such help tell who we are, who they are, why some things happen and others don’t. They explain the mundane and the apparently inexplicable.

In his Symbolic Convergence Theory, Bormann posits that rhetorical communities, shared explanations (or “fantasies” to use his language) pass through four stages: Consciousness Creating Communication; Consciousness Raising Communication; Consciousness Sustaining Communication; and decline.

Consciousness creation “involves the sharing of fantasies to generate new symbolic ground for a community of people.” (Bormann et al 1996). One could argue that this was the Republican Party from 1965 – 1980. It was a world view of smaller government, lower taxes and decentralized power.

Consciousness raising “is the proselytizing that leads inquirers and newcomers to share the fantasies of a rhetorical vision in such a way that they become converts and members of the rhetorical community.” (ibid). Here one can look to the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was able to get Democrats to vote Republican by offering a more compelling world view based on strength, success and individualism.

The next phase, consciousness sustaining, “is aimed at keeping those who have shared the rhetorical vision committed.” (ibid). One would be hard-pressed to find a Republican candidate from 1980 – 2008 who did not claim to carry Reagan’s mantle. He was the touchstone.

But at some point the vision loses its explanatory power, the community begins to fray. As Bormann puts it, “inflexible visions tend to fall out of step with experience.” When this happens some in the community may leave (a number of Republicans voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008, and of course Senator Specter is now D-PA rather than R-PA). One response is to be even more zealous and pure to the original vision. As those at the center of the community increase their grip more and more members of the community slip away.

This offers a moment for an alternative vision – a new community – to emerge. The Democrats are now in the ascent, attracting converts to an explanation that resonates with more people in the moment.

If history is a guide, the Republican Party will close ranks further, thus driving out more members, providing the Democrats and opportunity to create the dominant rhetorical community. The challenge for Democrats is to keep the community open and continue to offer a reasonable explanation. Even if the Democrats do this, and have a run of electoral success to match the Republicans from 1980 – 2004, they will themselves again falter.