Frank

Underwood and the Power of

Language
The use of language as rhetoric to sway public opinion
Benjamin Philip George (V00767906)

POLITICAL SCIENCE 347 RESEARCH PAPER

Friday, March 28, 2014. Marta Bathovski.

The politics of rhetoric can be thought of as a magic trick of word play.

Thereby, the art of magic is to create an acceptable illusion that can manipulate
human perception. Magic is the art of persuading, or convincing, the audience into
believing an false reality by cultivating on their past experiences and understandings
of a reality. Therefore, the goal of a magic act is to trick their audiences. In 1934,
Adelbert Ames, Jr. invented an optical illusion known as the Ames room, which was
designed to create a normal image from a distorted room from an outsiders
perspective. The Ames room experiment helps us understand a key relationship
between our sensory receptors and perception; it demonstrates that an experimenter
could easily manipulate the audience perceptions or belief by disguising a false idea
as reality without it being valid; simply put, an unknowing individual can be
strategically manipulated unless they are privy to the deceptions of the experimenter
beforehand. This optical illusion demonstrates another key principles of magic, which
requires the magician to intentionally guide the focus of the observer. By forcing the
observer to focus on the small, intricate details of the trick it is possible for the
unobserving to omit simultaneous occurrences outside their range of view. Once the
magician manages to divert the audiences attention from the object of the illusion to
the illusion itself, he has successfully completed his magic trick. In addition to the
Ames room, the Hollow-Face Illusion adds another component to the relationship of
deception and perception. The Hollow-Mask illusion is a concave mask of a face that
appears as a normal convex face, which shows an image of a face on both sides of the
mask. Interestingly enough, the hollow-face illusion illustrates that when we perceive
new images, we tend to perceive them as a product of our past images or experiences
to create a linguistic link between the new and the old. It demonstrated that our eye

can only perceive things based on what we know. Nevertheless, both these illusions
demonstrate the true power of deception in relation to perception.
I use the example of a magic trick and its purpose to describe a domesticated
form of rhetorical. A magic trick is the manipulation of another individuals mind by
making them believe a false reality based on past realities. Similarly, language can be
a very powerful tool in developing a reality. Our brain is hardwired to make
connection between the past, present, and future based on what we already know.
When faced with new situations, we return to our most common understanding the
situation. Shapiro (1989) recognized the importance of the relationship between
literary text and its historical context. He argued that literary text and the social
realities they represent bare traces or resembles to its previous construction in the
history of literary genre (P.11). Therefore, he suggested that our present social reality
is not dictated only by the current social context but rather we are also reliant on our
historical understanding different social context. In saying so, Shapiro establishes a
criterion for understanding of language as a tool for manipulation. Only those who
understand the various pre-text of apprehension can truly recognize the subject of
apprehension; by understanding the past we can comprehend the present. In this paper,
I define language as a system of words of linguistic signs or symbols considered in
the abstracts used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion,
rationality, etc. common to people who are of the same community or nation,
geographical area, cultural tradition, etc. Language plays a vital role in our everyday
life because it dictates how we communicate with each other and how we perceive
what is being communicated. It is the basic unit by which we understand the world.
Thus, it is possible to use language to manipulate situations through the process of
framing and rhetoric. It allows the speaker to take advantage of the audience by

framing the issues in a more favorable light in comparison to the alternatives.

Therefore, the purpose of the speaker is to convince, not through fear or coercion, the
audience to believe that their option or alternative is the better option. This process is
known as persuasion. The political process is the contest of alternative understandings
implicating splitting the world into spaces and identities (Shapiro, 1989: P. 12). Once
we textualize politics, we acknowledge that form of reality is arbitrated by a mode of
representation and these representations of reality are ways of creating facticity. To
understand the approach, we must further develop our understanding of the language.
For without proper understand, the individual will not fully comprehend the full
context of the text; therefore, de-politicizing the text or taking the meaning out of it.
Rozina and Karapetjana (2009) define politics as the art of governance and power.
Therefore, the relationship between language and politics and language and power
can be understood using rhetoric and linguistic theory. Furthermore, they define
ideology as an object that has material social existence in language, text, and
discourse, which is influence by social context reflected by conventional social norm,
rules, and procedures (P. 111). Therefore, language can be used to connect with
prospective audiences to moderate the role of discourse in the formation of a subject
matter. In relation to politics, language has the ability to allow all societies to
universally communicate with each other using it as an instrument to interact and
transact that is conventionally recognized as an official political environment (Rozina
and Karapetjana, 2009: P. 113).
The TV series, House of Cards, takes us through the life of Majority House
Whip Senator Frank Underwood as he manipulates his way through the ranks of the
US government to obtain the highest office in the United State, the office of the
President. Through Frank Underwood, executive producers Kevin Spacey and David

Fincher attempt to illustrate the immorality of the government. They demonstrate the
power of language as rhetoric, whilst, simultaneously indicating that the fear politics
strategy/approach will eventually backfire resulting in backlash. I specifically will use
season one episode two for my primary example, but will draw upon the entire story
to demonstrate the use of effective political rhetoric, but for personal gain rather than
social gains. Burke (1982) argues that for a trick or deception to be effective, it must
challenge and change the values and beliefs of the intended audience without any
interference from external forces (P. 46).
The episode begins the same way Frank Underwood begins his day; a rack of
ribs at Freddys BBQ. In his first Shakespeare like soliloquy, Kevin Spacey playing
Frank Underwood acknowledges his fondness for Freddys loyalty and persistence.
Although being the Majority Whip, Frank is still impressed by Freddys character,
which he describes as a person who does not even pretend to change. Unlike the rest
of society, those of whom are engaging in rhetoric, deceit and trickery as a vocation,
instead Freddy continued to run a small-business catering to the needs of his
community, but not the global or even regional. But nonetheless, Frank admires his
consistency in personality and characters. Another character I will introduce is Remy
Danton. Remy, a former of Underwood, now working for SanCorp works as a
lobbyist that for a pharmaceutical company because he demonstrates another as
component of influence, money. Frank states, in a soliloquy, that money is the
choice everyone makes, but will fall apart after 10 years or so; however, power is the
old stone building that stands for centuries. Through this quote, we can see the
directors trying to establish the foundation of what they identify as the true yielders of
power, in this case a senior politician for the government; yet, Frank notes that money
can buy you influence, but it will always requires more money for continuous support.

This argument is nevertheless subject to difference in perspective; it requires an

understanding of the situation and goals one is trying to achieve short-term or long
term. Still, Underwood tries to demonstrate by his actions that power encompasses the
ability to participate in the legislature, but is only a small part of achieving ones
objective. Rather, the true yielders of power are those who are privy to manipulating
rhetoric in their favor cutting across the arguments of space and time.
Under the linguistic theory principle by Rozina and Karapetjana (2009),
linguistic manipulation is the conscious use of language in a devious way to control
others by the use of indirect speech (P. 113). Linguistic manipulation acts as an
instrument of political rhetoric because political discourse is concentrated on
persuading audiences to take specified actions on a political decision. It focuses on
the prelocutionary effect of what is being said rather than what is said. Thereby
allowing language to be used as an instrument of manipulative intent to sway opinions.
Those who succeed in persuading managed to balance the relationship between power
of influence and instrument. Influential powers incline people to behave in an evident
manner not susceptible to penalties if one decides not to engage. In contrast,
instrumental powers relate to laws and conventions imposed by the state and
unlawfulness results in direct punishment. Nevertheless, both in law and in politics,
power relations require a mixture of both forms of powers. The notion of linguistic
manipulation is a feature of political rhetoric. Burke (1982) expresses rhetorical
philosophy, as the symbolic activities that are best understood by the speaker to
persuade others, the audience, to adopt a particular attitude towards a specific subject
(P. 45). Johnstone explained it to be the attempt to persuade an individual with the
potential risks of failure to successfully persuade the individual thus recognizing the
freedom of free will and choice. If one compels an individual, by coercion or force, in

order to persuade the individual then they are no longer engaging in the politics of
rhetoric. Atkinson, as cited by Rozina and Karapetjana (2009: P. 115) argues that
modern day rhetoric or linguistic manipulation requires the use of mass media
allowing politicians (speakers), etc. to alter the public (audience) opinion of their
views and beliefs. The phraseological allusion states that words carry meanings that
are linked to it not by definition but by a social or politicized context. The education
bill outlined in the episode of House of Cards demonstrates a key component of the
phraseological allusion. Due to Franks manipulative scheming, Representative
Donald Blythes education bill was leaked at first draft and was almost completely
rejected by the Presidents office Chief of Staff, to which Blythe replies all we have
here is a problem of perception. This phrase hits the heart of my papers, which is to
identify what provides an individual the ability to control or dictate the masses or
societies thinking; but not through a 1984, totalitarianism strategy, but rather though
persuasion-using facts, favors, and sometimes even sex.
Scholars argue that everyone has the ability to persuade another individual to
think in a different light; however, there are those that argue that everyone has the
ability to persuade another person to alter their views and opinion. Burke (1982: P.
49) points out that the ability to persuade and manipulate is not equal to every
individual, some individuals has more power to persuade than other depending on
their situation, status, positions, etc. The power to persuade another stems from the
strategic use of language as rhetoric, linked across time and space. It requires past
comprehensive understandings of past events occurring in a specific political
environment to understand the effects of language. Nelson argues that the greatest
challenge democracy is faced with is the provision of reliable information so citizens
may develop an authenticated political opinion, based on truths and facts not lies and

deceit (2004: P. 581). Therefore, House of Cards shows us that although the
American notion of freedom and democracy is at large in society, it can be
undermined by the power of the few who have the ability to control the perception of
different events. In the event that power is dispersed where pluralism is the norm,
then the power to persuade requires a form of compromise or coalition (Burke,
1982: P. 48). The notion of rhetoric stems from the thought that everything is a
matter of opinion with respect to free choice. As mentioned above, if the rhetoric
requires violence, it is no longer persuasion but moreso coercion. Therefore, those
who choose to avoid it, for instance discrimination and prejudices, can avoid the
rhetoric. In contrast, the politics of rhetoric is a game that directly or indirectly affects
everyone, even those who do not participate, by nature of the State. Thereby, it does
not imply equality but recognizes the procedural rights of freedom of choice and
consent of different perspectives (P. 50).
Following the Platonist idea of truth and freedoms, Burke argued that any law,
within reason but can extent up to constitutional law, can be alter, modified, or even
transformed as long as one manages to persuade enough people to vote in one way
over the other (1982: P. 50). Under this example, where there are only really two
choices either accept or reject, the politics of rhetoric is a zero-sum game, in which a
vote gained for one party is a vote lost for another party. Burke formulates winning
strategies using rhetoric using Aristotles types of persuasion: ceremonial, forensic,
and deliberate. The forensic strategy tries to persuade the audience to have a
particular belief about the past. The deliberate strategy attempts to persuade the
audience to act in a particular way in the future. Lastly, the ceremonial strategy, the
predominating strategy, bids the audience to have a particular feeling in the present
(1982: P. 52). For example, the objective of an attorney is to persuade the jury by

intentionally directing their attention from the subject. Likewise, in an electoral

campaign, the objective of the party is to convert enough people to their ideology to
elect them (Rozina and Karapetjana, 2009: P. 114). Hence, in a more democratic
society, it requires individuals form a coalition of ideas and beliefs, even though they
are not likeminded, in order to get elected. The American electoral system is unique
because it is a rhetorical affair but it relies on the wisdom of the people (P. 51).
Instead of focusing on the issues, politicians focus their attention on more pragmatic
strategies in trying to out persuade their opponents to garner votes. In order to do so,
politicians tend to frame an issue by emphasizing one policy direction over another.
As a result, the speaker can influence the balance citizens strike between opposing
values and belief and can eventually affect policy outcome (Nelson, 2004: P. 581).
The most effective form of modern framing is through mass communication.
Lupia and McCubbins (1998) described mass communication as an
enlightenment function of political communication; however, Nelson (2004: P. 582)
demonstrates that sometimes they are not because as James March describes human
beings have unstable, inconsistent, incompletely evoked, and imprecise goals because
human abilities limit preference orderliness. If it were possible to be different at
reasonable cost, we probably would want to be to. This statement by March
demonstrates that our capabilities as humans are not inborn, rather it is learnt;
therefore, we learn to see the world in a similar manner to those who live around us,
sometimes expanding over specific territorial regions with defining characteristics.
Shapiro argued that a nations foreign policy are a product of what have been shown
to be representational practices through which forms global otherness have been
created (1989: P. 15) For example, when we hear Latin America, our minds tend to
associate these what to past experiences and values we have already established about

this region. Generally, we do not just associate it as region on the globe, but rather but
describing them as Latin Americans we recreate an institutionalized dominance of
the North Americans on the Latin Americans. Although, this could be deemed trivial
in a sense, it stems from historical developed practices and views that were, -in this
case, predominantly dominated by North America. With the right influence and
instrument powers, by framing an issue, one can potentially direct public opinion by
focusing discourse or by phrasing their policies in a more favorable manner because
they have the ability to guide our understanding of the origin of the issue while
offering suggestion for contemporary solutions. Rozina and Karapetjana (2009)
argued that language allows politicians to form structurally stable social relationships
(P. 114). We see this example in House of Card, just after the 13:30 mark, Frank
Underwood had step up an elaborate plan to dismiss Michael Kern as the nominee for
Secretary of State in the newly-elected Walker administration. However, Underwood
was faced with a tough challenge because Kern was uncorrupted and clean, he had a
good reputation amongst his peers, and had a large network in the House of
Representative. Therefore, the episode journeys through Underwood strategic ploy,
by using the mass media, to discredit Representative Kern before getting him
dismissed as the primary nominee. The aspect I will focus on is the manner in which
Frank managed to achieve his objectives, because in this case the rhetoric is indirectly
related to the public but has direct benefits to the individual. The producers tried to
show that the use of rhetoric displays an important use of language. The importance
of a speech or a text is in its contextualized meaning; it is not about what is said, but
moreso about what is being said. The debacle Representative Kern was faced with
was not one about facts or truth, rather it demonstrated the essence of rhetoric in
American politics the message was delivered, and it relied on individual free choice

to decide on whether the accusation was true or false; what was important was how
the situation was ultimately interpreted, which transgressed into a international frenzy
of misunderstood words. As Frank Underwood puts it, it is not directly misleading
anyone, but there are question that need answering, and all we are doing is asking the
questions.
I use the example above to demonstrate the effect of rhetoric. Nelson (2004)
establishes that personal priorities have great influence on policy opinion. Therefore,
speakers can change public opinion by way of changes in goals and values prioritized.
This can be achieved and assisted by properly framing the issue to affect opinions in
the hypothesized nature; it allows us to predict certain outcomes by use of persuasive
tactics even though one issue can affect audiences differently. (P. 600). By forcing
Kern into commenting the delicate matter such as the Palestine-Israel crisis,
Underwood managed to stir up the internal crisis with the White House. Frank
undertook a new form of rhetoric, instead on trying to eliminate conflicting by
stressing greater value on one opinion over another, he allowed the situation to fester
and grow on its own. He managed to successfully frame his goal by manipulating the
target audiences by emphasizing a particular issue through existing belief and values.
Nelson concedes that the average citizens are unable or unwilling to think deeply or
even sincerely about politics. Cognitive psychologist have found that our brain
develop social context based on our most accessible memory (Nelson, 2004: P. 583).
Therefore, on contentious political issues, public opinion can be shaped by elite
contributions to the definition of problems and its solutions. The outcome of the
Michael Kern situation reveals an understanding of language through a phraseological
allusion, although words meanings may not definitive, they carry meaning that are
attached to it by nature of intent. To fully understand political discourse, it requires a

level of political background that helps individuals understand the situational context
because usually no prior source is offered by the listener or producer (Rozina and
Karapetjana, 2009: P. 116).
The original meaning of the word or phrase can serve as a vessel for which the
new meaning is assigned into. The function of an allusion is to indirectly reference
historical, literary, or mythological facts that pertain to a specific group in society. In
addition, when used as political rhetoric and allusion represents an image as an
implicit mental reference to the phraseological unit represented by the discovery (P.
118). The allusion uses images to appeal to imagination by using figurative languages
or speech that extends as literal language. By allowing allusion to become literal
language, we contribute to the successful presentation of the image. According to the
post-structuralist approach, our political and social worlds are reconstructed in the
process of writing, and in the style of text through which we understand the dominant
construction of the world (Shapiro, 1989: P. 18). Hence, the analysis of context is a
textual practice that is closely related to the political practices that it is primarily
aimed to disclose. This is the true definition of politics as rhetoric. In contrast, the
psychological approach demonstrates the effects of understanding the different
perspectives; a persons mind could be changed as a response to danger. By locating
belief in its historical context, we can identify the characteristics relevant to the
formation of our identity. When our primary needs are those of basic needs and
survival, we tend to focus more of our attention on trying to fulfill our basic needs
instead of quality of life.
The use of language as rhetoric is a skill that requires ones understanding of
the art of persuasion and the meaning of words and phrases relative to history. The
most pragmatic strategy is where one manages to outsmart the opponents strategy.

However, if one goes into the opponents team room and steal their playbook, and use
their plays to beat them; you have broken the rules of the game. Above I mentioned, if
ones use of rhetoric require force or coercion is it no longer the politics of rhetoric but
the politics of fear; this surpasses the use of language and discourse to change the
audiences mind. I argue this is not an efficient method, and in time, fear will only last
for so long, until the weaknesses of the government are exposed and the likelihood of
revolutions in the future. For example, the republicans suffered electoral
disqualifications in American, like in the 1974 election due to manipulative politics.
The electoral period known as the Watergate project, and it was very much illegal.
Nonetheless this exhibits an unprecedented shift our understanding of rhetoric; we
have to acknowledge that in certain circumstances forces can replace free choice;
regrettably, the real victims are the public and their ability to form an authentic
political and social understanding about their political environment. Above I argued
that once if you have to steal the your opponents playbook to win a game, you are
definitely not going to win the game. Similarly, with the Watergate experience, the
republicans tried to infiltrate the democratic party to steal their political strategies;
regrettably, the public will not know how often events like this occur unless the begin
to actively participate in seeking out political and social knowledge. In the event that
they public choose to remain ignorant to the rhetoric or manipulation occurring,
politicians, elite, and others will take advantage of the masses for their own benefit;
Consequencely, this is the nature of capitalism a institutionalized belief embedded in
the American system, public, and even culture. Aristotle understood the success of
rhetoric to be dependent on three factors: character of the speaker, predilections of the
audience, and the content and form of the speech. Burke (1982: P. 54) concluded that
American politics is an ongoing debate in society where everyone is trying to score

point according to the agreed upon rules. Frank Underwood uses these rules to his
benefit and we see this in the show as his written words, Catherine Durant, which
was later spoken to the public by the President of the United State. I argue this was
possible only because of Frank Underwood ability to persuade and convince people
into changing their minds, which he did through compromise and good southern
hospitality. The show depicts a case where one man manages to outsmart a certain,
powerful few individuals that allowed him to direct public policy and opinion without
being in the crossfire. The power to persuade or influence is dependent on ones ability
to use your historical knowledge and understanding to develop an understanding
about the present system. The use of rhetoric, which is common to everyone,
enhances the ability of an individual seeking power to garner support for their views
by using mass communication and social media. Hence, those who controls the social
rhetoric essentially directs the views of the public, in accordance with the will of
those in power or have the ability to persuade. At the end of the episode, Frank tells a
homeless man that no one was listening to him, no one cared about what he was screaming,
and nothing will come of it; he was essentially telling the man his effort were redundant
because he was not persuading or convincing anyone into changing their minds. The
homeless man did not understand the characteristic that encompasses a successful rhetoric,
but Frank Underwood did. Frank understood that for rhetoric to work it required an
institutional base that provided the means to communicate with the public to inform,
influence, legislate, persuade, and ultimately issue commands. By using linguistic
manipulation as an instrument of rhetoric we can conceal what is being said by using the right
language and phrases and mass communication as a tool.

Bibliography:

Burke, R. J. (1982). Politics as Rhetoric. Chicago Journal. The University of Chicago

Press. pp. 45-55. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380761
Shapiro, M. J. (1989). Textualizing Global Politics. International/Intertexual
Relations. Lexington Books: New York. pp 11-21.
Nelson, T. E. (2004). Policy Goals, Public Rhetoric, and Political Attitudes. The
Journal of Politics, 66(2). The Ohio State University. pp. 581-605.
Rozina and Karapetjana (2009). The Use of Language in Political Rhetoric: Linguistic
Manipulation pp. 111-122. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. SD Fen Edebiyat Fakltesi