Brands in Politics: Why The Risk is Worth it

By Lily Bridgewater

Should brands use their voices to get involved in the political realm? Or should they stay out of it all together?

Nike's trademarked logo and slogan make
their products easy to identify

In my experience, when people with opposing political views have a discussion it rarely ends well. More often than not it turns into a volume match. Who can speak the loudest? Who has more stamina?

Today some of the loudest voices that exist come in the form of big brands. People follow brands like Nike, Apple, Stance and Google like they follow religion. There are people who live eat and breathe specific brands because the brand lifestyle and values resonate with them. 

So what about when the brand has something to say that isn't necessarily about the way you play the game or the product? Should they risk losing loyalty and sales or should they keep quiet and stay in their lane? 

Although brands will likely suffer a loss of some from when they make political statements, I believe it's better and more beneficial for them to use their platforms to make statements than to stay silent in today's political climate. 

A Malleable Audience

To see what an impactful orator was Winston Churchill, one need only look at the fact there is an award-winning film, The Darkest Hour, that centers around his ability as a speaker. Phrases from his iconic speeches remain in the minds of even the least historically attuned. One speech that stands out is the "Sinews of Peace" speech he gave at the start of the Cold War. For better or worse, it was powerful, and its message spread worldwide.

Winston Churchill delivering his "Sinews of Peace,"
aka "Iron Curtain," speech at Westminster College
in front of an attentive audience.

An essential part of Churchill's speech is kairos. The former prime minister delivered it at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, to as large an audience as would fit in the gymnasium, with President Harry Truman beside him. He knew he had an intelligent, attentive audience that included US officials with power to influence change.

Almost the first half of the speech is written to connect the orator to his audience. He starts off with some rather effective humor, and by linking himself to the president, he cements his authority as a speaker to an American congregation. In the first half of the speech, Churchill makes increasingly bold claims followed by statements recognizing that he and the audience are in agreement (also made apparent by the audience's applause). By the halfway point, there is an evident connection between Churchill and his listeners.

Once Churchill builds a rapport with his audience, he gradually uses that trust to ask them to consider an idea of his: unifying the United States and the British Commonwealth. He leans heavily on both logos and pathos for this. He calls the people to action against fears that most were all too familiar with ("the two great dangers which menace the home of the people, War and Tyranny"), and lists specific ways in which unifying would be logical and beneficial ("This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force."). I can imagine those calls would be particularly powerful to citizens of a country that had just been through a heart-wrenching war and continued to live in fear of looming catastrophic bombs.

Churchill frequently uses repetition, congeries, and alliteration to drive home his points, and his delivery makes them even more stirring ("For them is all distorted, all is broken, all is even ground to pulp."). It's difficult not to connect with language that is crafted in such a way as Churchill sculpted his.

Image

All in Balance

Winston Churchill is indisputably one of the greatest orators of all time. His speeches rallied nations, his voice was a constant during Europe's most terrifying conflict. He became a trusted force for justice and freedom in the world, and was regarded as such long after his term as Prime Minister had concluded. It was in this attitude that he delivered his speech, "The Sinews of Peace" only 8 months after WWII had ended. What impressed me so much about this address was the balance between all three persuasive appeals. Churchill employed them effortlessly, creating an airtight argument for his view of the world condition at the time.

He begins with a brief appeal to pathos, marking the short time since the war had passed before engaging in a thorough and well organized logical analysis of the state of world affairs. He speaks of the necessity of the world organization in guarding against war and tyranny. He states that the world needs a global armed force. He describes the situation in Eastern Europe dispassionately, stating facts with little to no leaning into pathos. He saves that.

Delicately, he implies that the success of the UNO depends on the success and influence of the U.S.'s treaties outside that order, appealing to his relationship to the country as the leader of it's former ally. He calls upon the U.S., as the foremost world power, to lead the world in freedom and liberty. He disavows his interest and ambition in world affairs saying, "any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams". He thus presents himself as an old and cherished friend, arrived to lend some advice near and dear to his heart.

And so, with logos and ethos carefully balanced, Churchill delivers his most poignant blow- War is not inevitable. It can be prevented. It could have been prevented if they'd listened to him before the last war. Hopefully, they'll listen to him now, and take his advice.

It's a brilliant construction to a cogent point. Only with the solid support of his relationship to the nation to whom he was speaking and the factual backing of the situation in Europe could he make the appeal for them to listen to him, or risk the end of the world as we know it.

Plight of the Ordinary Family

Winston Churchill begins his speech by addressing all and then proceeds with using “I.” He uses “I’ to compliment and show respect. He then switches to “we” as a show of solidarity. His voice is powerful, yet not overpowering. He speaks slowly, giving the audience time to take in every word. He pauses when he should, and he gives time for the audience to clap.

                                          Image credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/45909111

There are several examples of Churchill using alliteration. When he says, “preach what we practice––let us practice what we preach,” he uses both repetition and alliteration. This rhetorical style gets the attention it desires. In that same paragraph, there is “poverty and privation” used. In the last paragraph of the speech, the alliteration is strong: “walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking….”

Churchill uses a fair amount of metaphors, beginning with those used in his paragraph on the UNO. He says that the UNO is “already at work…that its work is fruitful…that it is a temple of peace…not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.” And that “…we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon the shifting sands or quagmires, but upon a rock.” He continues with “…our path will be difficult and also long….” By quoting from the Bible, he is appealing to religious beliefs. He alludes to religion two other times when he says, “God has willed…” and “In my father’s house are many mansions.”

One of the most powerful paragraphs is a good example of appeal to pathos, with repetition and metaphors added in. In speaking of “the myriad of cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life…” he describes well their plight: “They must be shielded from two gaunt marauders, war and tyranny. We all know the frightful disturbance in which the ordinary family is plunged when the curse of war swoops down upon the breadwinner….” He shows empathy to the common man by bringing to attention “… the designs of wicked men…aggressive urge of mighty States…humble folk are confronted with difficulties with which they cannot cope.”

He ends with the powerful sentence: “For them is all distorted, all is broken, all is even ground to a pulp.” A visual description of the plight of the common man. 

Sprezzatura as Demonstrated by Castiglione

The effect that even the most rudimentary of orators can have on a passionate crowd is notorious. Indeed, as Shakespeare wrote "Was ever feather so lightly blown to and fro as [a] multitude?" (William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"). Mobs provide fertile ground for pathos, the Greek term for emotional rhetoric. Such rapidly raised emotions, however, often fade just as quickly as they were inflamed.

Books, on the other hand, are patient. They can convince you of an idea without ever directly referring to it or even perhaps without allowing you to realize you are being swayed. The authority of bold black words, stained permanently into an impermanent medium, always causes me to take the author at least a little more seriously--with more respect, you could say-- than if I were speaking with him or her face to face. 

Reading Baldassarre Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier has reminded me of just how subtle written rhetoric can be. In The Courtier, Castiglione uses conversations between various noblemen and ladies to illustrate the ideal attributes of a courtier. Castiglione's characters seem to navigate convoluted debates over courtly virtues to arrive at eventual conclusions, but the dialogue reminds me of Plato's Republic, in which every argument somehow seems to lead exactly to where the protagonist and primary conversationalist, Socrates, wants it to. 

Is it surprising that this singular work made such a lasting impact on the culture of civilized behaviour? Perhaps, I'm not sure, but the rhetorical genius of Castiglione is not in his appraisal of the perfect courtier; perfection is easy to peddle. Instead, we are convinced by the subtle flawlessness of the court in which the dialogues take place, the seamless and flowing arguments made by its members, and the air of sprezzatura which permeates every word of the text.

Image credits: "The Court of Mantua" by Andrea Mantegna (public domain image via Wikimedia Commons).