Going Negative: Push Your Opponent to the Extreme

Posted on May 12, 2010 by David

As I’ve already discussed, it is vital to engage in negative messaging. However, public affairs campaigns often face a seemingly insurmountable obstacle… how do you push back against a cause that has overwhelming public support? When an issue advocacy group is defending a position that has 80% public approval, how can you possibly attack it? The simple answer is… don’t attack it! One very effective technique is to not directly attack their position but instead to push that group to the absolute extreme and reframe the debate attacking the group for holding an extreme position.

This technique has been in use for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks wrote about this technique and even identified the logical fallacy at play—the straw man argument. However, just because it’s a logical fallacy doesn’t make it a bad technique. On the contrary, since as we’ve already discussed people make decisions in the reptilian brain (amygdale) on an emotional basis, the decision has already been made before the logical brain (frontal cortex) becomes activated. Since people decide based upon emotions and not logic, they fail to recognize logical fallacies.

I. Case Study: Healthcare Reform

A perfect example of this technique in action is the recent response to the health care reform legislation. Without discussing the merits of the legislation itself, I can identify two incontrovertible facts:

1) Before the legislation was introduced, the American public overwhelmingly supported healthcare reform. In poll after poll, the American public wanted to see some form of healthcare reform. President Obama campaigned heavily on this issue and it was a very effective talking point.

2) The legislation that was actually introduced was a compromise. Many, if not most, liberals felt the legislation because it did not go far enough. In fact, the legislation most closely approximates the legislation Senator Bob Dole sponsored in 1993 in response to the Clinton healthcare plan.

So, the opponents of healthcare reform faced a climate where the public overwhelmingly supported reform and the legislation itself would be acceptable to the majority of people (if they properly understood it). These forces realized this and utilized a straw man attack to reframe the debate. Instead of attacking the plan itself, they accused the plan of being a socialist takeover of healthcare. They asserted the plan would destroy the private sector and would turn America into France. They then used every attack against socialized medicine to attack the healthcare reform legislation… even if those attacks didn’t apply at all!

For instance, in single payer systems, the government does ultimately approve or reject claims for treatment. Under the healthcare reform legislation, private insurance companies will still cover individuals and will ultimately approve or reject claims for treatment (with new limits on what these companies can reject). The opposition to healthcare reform claimed the government would convene “death panels” to “ration care” and decide who would and would not receive treatment.

Although this claim is patently false, people believed it… because under the straw man they set up it was true.

Ultimately, even though the healthcare reform law was passed and signed into law, the opponents still won in the public square. People believed the straw man attack and believe the legislation was something it was not. The ramifications of this are clear… the Democratic Party faces a massively uphill battle in defending elected officeholders during the midterm election and could face significant losses in November.

II. Profiles in Spin: Rick Berman

One individual who has been highly successful in employing this form of attack is lobbyist Rick Berman. The lobbyist Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking is said to be a “pale imitation of the reality of the Beltway’s most outrageous advocate.” A 60 Minutes profile says he takes pride in the nickname “Dr. Evil.” Berman’s clients include a who’s who list of companies that are under constant attack by issue advocacy groups with poll numbers showing the public supports their positions.

In order to shift public opinion, Rick Berman has become a master at the straw man argument. The American Prospect reports,

“Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger,” he once told Chain Leader Magazine, a trade publication for restaurant chains (whose readership presumably doesn’t include too many ordinary consumers). “We’ve got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons.”

One tactic he uses is to attack the messenger is to portray the groups as having an extremist agenda. From labor unions to teachers unions to issue advocacy groups like MADD, PETA and the Humane Society, Rick Berman has taken them on by creating a straw man argument that their group is out to impose an extremist agenda on society.

For instance, the majority of people (53%) supported the Employee Free Choice Act when polled by Gallup. Proponents claim it will prevent employer retribution and streamline the process to create a union. To combat it, Rick Berman’s group UnionFacts.Com has run ads attacking a straw man version of the legislation that claims the employees would be forced to vote a certain way by “thugs.”