Hollande and Copé: Defusing Rhetorical Agression

For those following our French elections, there is an excellent rhetorical analysis today in the Nouvel Observateur by Bruno Roger-Petit, with ample comparative examples of rhetors faced with similar agressive tactics as Copé employed last night against Hollande, with video proof from Mitterand to Chirac.

The most pragmatic and useful point of Roger-Petit's Obs piece is its outlining of several ways to counter these harassing, Mr Interruptor techniques. These defusing devices actually work extraordinarily well in professional contexts as well (try them).

Roger-Petit is right too in his analysis of Copé's agression last night. But more on that in a moment. To begin, a historical example of this agression being magnificently defused by the mere use of gestures and appropriate posture. The example I wanted to briefly look at reminds us of how impressive Chirac could be in these contexts - of course but a sad memory today, given the old man's current state - in spite of his well-known coleric disposition.

Even if you don't get the French, Fabius's gestures and actio here, beginning at 0:40 in the clip below, are just rhetorical suicide: the diagonal position with one arm posed on the back of his chair, the truly disastrous hand motions - waving away of the hand as in dismissal of a subordinate at 1:14, the single index finger arrogantly raised... Waving away combined with a raised index... This is almost in itself enough to make any viewer perceive you as an at once arrogant and - interestingly - insecure agressor. 

In comparison, Chirac's gestures are precise and studied: the well-known "thumb meeting conjoined fingers in a pyramid" which simultaneously conveys precision and strength, or the right arm straight out and firmly set on the desk... 

Chirac rhetorically owned Fabius here. Hollande held well last night against Copé. At one point I was concerned: Copé was almost succeeding, with the infuriating consistency of his interruptions, in making Hollande look weak and indecisive. It's a very delicate discursive see-saw, and Hollande looked at the beginning to be succombing to the weaker, downward end of the plank.

But then Hollande threw in some good stuff. A few authoritative "I have not finished speaking" and "Let me finish", as well as a few pointed indexes well deployed...  

In the clip below, Copé's "one hand across the lips" listening position is very bad. It's bad for a few reasons. Along with his little glances to one side, it conveys that he is trying not to speak, or does not want to speak. Everyone should avoid this gesture when "listening". Then, when his interruptions don't work, all we hear is "but" or "Monsieur Hollande". 

Electorates can of course respond in two ways to Copé's agressive techniques. They are an immense gamble. If they work, they can be extraordinarily destructive, effectively crippling an opposing candidate, colouring all subsequent announcements with the memory of an indecise, weak ethos . If they don't work, the air of statemanship conveyed to the electorate by the defender, combined with the "sympathy vote", can be crippling to the agressor. 

The Obs' conclusion is thus right: no knock-out for either camp here, but I'm calling a slight advantage to Hollande's air of solidity among the electorate. This, however, means little: Hollande will have to face these same techniques deployed with 10 times the skill when he faces Sarkozy. Copé was simply a little training session, a clumsier sparring partner. If Hollande is to see it through, he will have to be stronger still against a man who masters such pragmatic belligerance to a far greater extent than Copé. 

Sarkozy can be utterly brutal in his intuitive mastery of these take-downs. If Hollande can keep the statesmanlike calm going through the 1st voting round, he will be in good stead. But at the debate with Sarkozy before the 2nd round, he needs to leave the statesmanship behind - he needs to treat his reputation for solidity as an acquired gain - and respond to Sarkozy with equal force. 

The rule is thus: 1st round, statesman, 2nd round, solid refusal to back down, with a burst of surprising agression right towards the end.  

For, unlike Royale, Hollande looks solid when leaning towards agression. But there is, of course, a great deal of sexism at play in this distinction: the techniques for defusing rhetorical agression are sadly completely different concerning women and men. The extract below, from 2:00 onwards, when Sarkozy explicitly said to Royale "Calm down! Calm down! Don't point your finger at me!", shows his awareness of how this gesture would be perceived in the context of a male-female rhetorical interaction. 

The nightmare of Royale's debate with Sarkozy is thus fresh in everyone's mind. Sarkozy will not be able to say to Hollande "To be President, one must be calm!" or "Calm down, Madame!"

To put it differently: Mohammad Ali didn't try to just hit George Foreman in the head. Hollande needs to dance first, then sting.

Nobody doubts the dancing ability, but he needs to practice his stinging. If I was in the Hollande HQ, I'd be making him memorise at least twenty stinging take-downs, which he can simply reiterate over and over again during the final week. Hollande has the advantage of being able to be very aggressive in the last stages of the campaign, using his prior calm as capital.