RHETORICAL LEADERSHIP IN ACTION

By John Hill

Introduction

A crisis is defined by Professor Kyle Jensen as an “event that disrupts or threatens to disrupt the prevailing way of life for the majority of citizens.”  Certainly, the COVID-19 outbreak and its effect on a large swatch of the world counts as a crisis.  Leaders and politicians have a major role in crisis management in charting a course of getting those they lead out of the crisis and minimizing economic damage and loss of life, all the while keeping the citizenry over which they preside calm and cooperative.  

In managing the Covid pandemic in New York state, Governor Andrew Cuomo exemplified the power of rhetorical mastery and the purposeful, constituent use of language as symbolic action to move citizens and earn their trust.  Just as the covid crisis impacted and potentially induced fear in those of all ages and ethnic backgrounds, so too Cuomo had to use language that would be accessible and speak to everyone. Through the use of simple but powerful figurative language and metaphor, he created powerful images and symbolism, and did so in a very direct, sincere and passionate manner.  

Fear impacted all persons regardless of age and diverse backgrounds; nevertheless, covid, like all crises, was experienced unequally, with the serious health effects in particular being unevenly distributed among the elderly and certain racial groups.  Cuomo effectively addressed the huge political challenge of getting everyone unified by building on larger, already existing notions of solidarity among the New York citizens he governs.  Cuomo ensured that New Yorkers all felt bound together and unified by specifically stating the ways they are all connected and ultimately affected, all the while providing reasons why they should all work together toward a common purpose.  

 Through specific rhetoric and rhetorical tropes, he created a material reality through “doing words” and spoke to and unified an entire, diverse state. As stated by Professor Peter Goggins, “our very impressions of material reality are constructed by possibilities implicit in our use of terms - what we express, how we express it, and with what consequences,” including being responsible for changing material versions and how that can change consequences.  The covid crisis makes for a very good assessment of the effectiveness of rhetoric based on changing material versions and resulting consequences as so little was known about the disease and its potential impact in the beginning.  With facts that were known, Cuomo conveyed them in a way that established logos, and always relied on and deferred to facts in establishing an ethos of credibility.  When facts were not available or not clear, Cuomo utilized the power of that unknown and fear emanating from it by evoking trust and establishing that he had New Yorkers best interest at heart. 

 At a time when public trust in institutions of knowledge was at an all-time low ebb, and with the very mistrust and political polarization over the pandemic exacerbating even that low level of trust, the challenge was heightened.  Additionally, changing material version of the pandemic being played out as a real time narrative with competing voices and accounts on social media, especially by social influencers and thought leaders with power in the marketplace of ideas potential equal to or greater than even the governor of a major state, added to the challenge. And although Cuomo did come under criticism in retrospect for many of his policies and decisions, he mostly future proofed his rhetoric and perceived motivations of having the citizens best interest at heart, particularly as it relates to that which matters more than anything - their health.  The challenge of effectively delivering information through potent rhetoric was at a premium.    

 Artifacts and Analysis

 Establishing the seriousness of a crisis but doing it with language and symbolism that gets people to take action while remaining calm and reassured is the ultimate goal and challenge of leaders.  The changing nature of crises also must be managed.  From the beginning of the crisis Cuomo took a course of action whereby he informs, persuades, and reassures.  This is achieved through his daily briefings.  It would be easy to simply shirk from this.  It was a risk.  He could say or do the wrong thing. Yet he created ethos with his mere presence - his constant appearance under the symbolic seal of New York state in his daily briefing had the effect of speaking to the importance of the issue (it must be important; he has a briefing every day) while creating a bit of desensitization of the horrors being felt. 

 Cuomo insulated himself from potential criticism and simultaneously took the high road by invoking logos and pathos.  In his daily briefings he strove to have as consistent a position as he could based on known facts (logos) and appeals to shared values and emotions (pathos) to fill in the gaps of what was not known, but which he could universally justify afterwards if emerging facts conflicted with his practice.  At the same time, he was not afraid to remind all, even at the risk of appearing vulnerable, that he did not know all the answers.  While this might appear to be a hit to his logos, it is a calculated rhetorical move to actually increase his ethos.  The stated assumption here is simply “I don’t know or have all the answers” (loss of logos), but the even more powerful unstated assumption is that you can trust him with what he is telling you to do and act on, as it is built on trust.  He thus enhances his ethos.  

 Cuomo is a good study in rhetoric over the course of time and of how leaders can work through an unpredictable situation, where the gathering of facts and information are constantly changing the material versions and their interpretations.  

In a speech given to the New York National Guard in March 2020: 

(https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-gov-cuomos-moving-speech-defeating-coronavirus/story?id=69839370), Cuomo had his full display of crisis rhetoric on display.  He uses several rhetorical devices, or tropes.  He uses the rhetorical trope of anaphora in the line “This is not going to be a short deployment. This is not going to be that you go out there for a few days, we work hard, and we go home.”  He uses to trope of repetition in stating to emphasize: “This is gonna be weeks and weeks and weeks.”  He also uses repetition in the form of anaphora: “This is going to be a long day. And it’s going to be a hard day.  And it’s going to be an ugly day.  And it’s going to be a sad day.”  

 The stated assumption in all these tropes is that fighting and winning the battle against covid involves an element of time; the unstated assumption is that this investment of time, if simply endured, will result in a solution (almost in and of itself).

 Cuomo also invokes the metaphor of comparing the virus to a beast (in essence an untamed animal).  States Cuomo, “This is a different beast that we're dealing with. This is an invisible beast. It is an insidious beast.”  The structure of having “beast” repeated at the end of each phrase for rhetorical emphasis is called an epistrophe.  

 Cuomo further uses the metaphor of war, comparing the strategy of solving COVID to a military mobilization:  referencing “deployment”, “rescue mission”, an “enemy” that “attacks.”  In this sense he makes the unstated assumption that we have tools and weapons in which to go into that battle.  The stated assumption is that, like war, lives will be lost.  

The unstated assumption is that the enemy can and should be defeated through an active, aggressive show of “force” comparable to a military invasion, which runs counter to the call for a more passive approach of simply avoiding exposure.  One disconnect with the “war” theme is that, unlike in the military, which typically calls upon its strongest to engage in “battle,” in this instance the virus attacks the weakest.

 One further unstated assumption was that the reference to war, regardless of potential efficacy, nonetheless would be received as rhetorically appealing by his audience given that he was addressing the New York National Guard, this was a safe bet.

 In his daily briefing of March 24 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/politics/andrew-cuomo-new-york-coronavirus/index.html ), Cuomo once again uses the rhetoric of repetition and anaphora: “And we're going to get through it because we are New York, and because we've dealt with a lot of things, and because we are smart. You have to be smart to make it in New York. And we are resourceful, and we are showing how resourceful we are. And because we are united, and when you are united, there is nothing you can't do. And because we are New York tough.”  

 This is followed and balanced once again with rhetorical epistrophe: “We are tough. You have to be tough. This place makes you tough.”  But it makes you tough in a good way. We're going to make it because I love New York, and I love New York because New York loves you.”

 The trope of personification also is utilized: "New York loves all of you. Black and white and brown and Asian and short and tall and gay and straight. New York loves everyone. That's why I love New York. It always has, it always will. And at the end of the day, my friends, even if it is a long day, and this is a long day, love wins. Always. And it will win again through this virus. Thank you."

 And we're going to get through it because we are New York, and because we've dealt with a lot of things, and because we are smart. You have to be smart to make it in New York. And we are resourceful, and we are showing how resourceful we are. And because we are united, and when you are united, there is nothing you can't do. And because we are New York tough. We are tough. You have to be tough. This place makes you tough. But it makes you tough in a good way. We're going to make it because I love New York, and I love New York because New York loves you.

 New York loves all of you. Black and white and brown and Asian and short and tall and gay and straight. New York loves everyone. That's why I love New York. It always has, it always will. And at the end of the day, my friends, even if it is a long day, and this is a long day, love wins. Always. And it will win again through this virus. Thank you."

 The rhetoric at play in using this type of personification is that New York is “one of us” so to speak.  It loves us, so we should love it, and in the ultimate unifying sense we should love each other.  The stated assumptions are that it loves us and we love it (“New York loves everyone”), but the unstated assumption that is implied is that we should love each other (i.e. “New York loves everyone equally, so we should use that as our standard, as New Yorkers, and we should love everyone).

 Cuomo makes the rhetorical appeal for the need to protect people in stating, “Because these are the people that every instinct tells us we are supposed to protect. These are our parents and grandparents. These are our aunts, our uncles. These are our relatives who are sick. And every instinct says protect them, help them, protect them because they need us.”  

 Here, he is employing the rhetorical device of anaphora and the discourse of distinct sentence break for emphasis.  The stated assumption is that we need to help protect these people.  The unstated assumption is that we need to be moved to protect these people equally.  By using this rhetoric and discourse specifically, he is making each layer of the family seem equal.  Note that Cuomo could have just as easily said, “These are our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and other relatives.”  But from a rhetoric and discourse strategy sense, this has the effect of necessarily subsuming each ensuing category below the other in a way that is taken as descending or linearly less important as you go down the line.  His goal is to unify ALL casualties of the virus as equal and to motivate ALL New Yorkers to be moved to act (whether they lost a parent or an uncle is immaterial, they BOTH should be moved to act in the same way).  He states: “We're going to do this and we're going to do this together.”  Indeed, New Yorkers will be moved to act to “do this together” if they can be convinced that everyone is equal and thus are all in this together.  Cuomo achieves this with his rhetoric.

 Cuomo continues with rhetorical anaphora for the purpose of emphasis: “And 10 years from now you'll be talking about today to your children or your grandchildren, and you will shed a tear because you will remember the lives lost, and you'll remember the faces and you'll remember the names, and you'll remember how hard we worked and that we still lost loved ones.”  He skillfully uses this device to emphasize how we should act now based on a sense of how our future selves will look back retrospectively.  The stated assumption is that we will be sad upon reflection, but the unstated assumption is that we should be moved in a way as to prevent or minimize that potentially bleak future.  

 In an April 14, 2020 press conference, Cuomo once again uses rhetoric consistently in an effort to draw on ethos (his position as governor, the symbol of the State of New York on his lectern and over his shoulder on the wall), logos (stats, facts, projections) and pathos (a plea to action by appealing to emotion).  

 https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/KfAEcOEIOWydJ6s5Pe5dsF2Bt-RY2T9R6379SdkLBuaBy0BHHMv9tUqeU0wlz7M4H7kXH9U5s_6hJAP6TmE_7wv19mQ?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=1128.44

 In his specific attempt to achieve pathos and to evoke clear images that resonate with citizens, he utilizes once again personification, a bit of anaphora via repetition, and appeals to unity in stating that “The virus can get on Amtrak.  The virus can get in a car and drive up 95. We’re all connected.”  

The stated assumption is that the virus can move and travel, the unstated assumption is that the virus can attack indiscriminately and can potentially be out of control and that this is something we can impact.

Cuomo once again uses the metaphor of war in saying “it takes more strength frankly, to walk away from a fight, than engage in” it.  The stated assumption is that walking away from a fight is good sometimes, but the unstated assumption is that walking away would not be an act of cowardice or dereliction of duty to act to fight or defend in this instance. From a stance of generating ethos and pathos, Cuomo appeals to unity once again by stating “it is not about me, it’s about we.”  In this sense pathos is engendered as is ethos (I care about you not me).

Finally, Cuomo uses the rhetorical device of both personification and metonymy in saying “the volume is still high, and that's why the hospitals are still working very hard.”

 Conclusion - Recommendations

The covid crisis makes for a very good assessment of the effectiveness of leadership rhetoric. Inequality of impact still must yield unifying adherence of social cohesion for the greater good.  Citizens must be moved to act certainly and consistently.  Furthermore, changing material versions and utilizing rhetoric to influence or counter those versions, difficult enough in normal times, becomes very challenging while attempting to effectively lead and maintain trust.  Leaders also must future proof their rhetoric for the sake of maintaining respected status after the crisis has passed and their actions and words are viewed retrospectively.  When information changes those positions, regardless of impact on ego or loss of face, then policy should change. 

 So little was known about covid in the beginning, and over time and in retrospect Governor Cuomo came under criticism for certain aspects of his policies.  A leader in a position of governor must rely on information from advisors, including being subordinate to national policies or being influenced by health organizations.  Cuomo can be criticized in retrospect for how some of his decisions turned out, but he smartly did not try to bend his rhetoric to change material versions that he had no idea how would unfold without precedent.  And by having clearly stated and unstated assumptions that underlie the notion of doing what was best for the people of New York based on the information at hand, he positioned himself to survive scrutiny. 

 To the extent Cuomo could legitimately be criticized, however, it was that even as information changed he was so entrenched and invested in his staunch policies of lockdown, and possibly even being a counter to the president (itself a form of ethos for those in his party), that when he could have changed policies he did not, or at least did not as quickly as some would have liked in terms of relaxed lockdown policies, for example). I believe he should have resisted the political polarization and party pressure, to the extent that was a reality, and continued to do what was in the best interest of his people independent of his party or future elections.

 In conclusion, through strategic use of rhetoric, leaders will seek to convince citizens to, as Jensen informs, “think, act and feel in ways that are consistent with their purposes.”  In this sense, rhetoric in times of crisis is magnified, and the stakes are even higher.  Political power can be lost or seized, reputations and legacies cemented or ruined. The hope is that leaders will “do the right thing” for the “greater good.”  However, there is always the notion of “never letting a good crisis go to waste” that can motivate the desire to leverage a crisis for political manipulation (perhaps for more power and control). Regardless of true intent or effect, the main purpose of rhetoric among leaders, magnified greatly in a crisis, is to persuade - to act, or not act, to be calm, and ultimately to persuade those that they lead to listen to and trust them as a leader.  Governor Andrew Cuomo achieved this with masterful use of simple, effective, and understandable rhetoric acting in a good faith effort to protect his citizens.  The final chapter on how he acted, and its results, is still being written.  However, one chapter that is officially in the books is that the early period of the pandemic, not just in New York but nationwide, was greatly influenced by the symbolism of his presence and by his impactful rhetoric.