Let’s look today at a crucial question in rhetoric: the techniques of oratorical jousting. Thursday, February 10, Jean-Luc Mélenchon debated with the president of Medef, Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux. The latter gave us a lesson in the art of attacking his opponent vigorously… but subtly.
>> Presidential 2022: the five sequences to remember from the interview with Jean-Luc Mélenchon in “Elysée 2022”
This is a word that we are not necessarily used to pronouncing when it comes to political debates, but it seems appropriate in this case. Thursday evening, in fact, we saw the president of Medef appear against the candidate of the Insoumis on France 2, and we could expect a full attack against the program of La France insoumise. And yet: “You have a program, I read it, I recommend everyone to read it because it’s very well done, it’s well written, it’s interesting, underlines the president of Medef. There are things I can agree on. For example, you mentioned the Francophonie. I think this is a real topic. The sea, you are the only candidate to talk about the sea. But obviously, there is one point on which we totally disagree: this is what you want to do for companies. I take you seriously. I think you are ready to govern, otherwise it is not worth debating.”
This register is unusual in the context of a political contest between two adversaries as far apart as these two men. On the scale of history, on the other hand, this is part of a long tradition, which goes back to the Roman Senate: that which consists of flattering one’s opponent at the start of a debate. Of course, behind this there is a strategic aim. The objective is to show listeners that one is not dogmatic or narrow-minded but, on the contrary, honest and measured. In this way, when the critics arrive, they seem all the more sincere, and therefore dangerous. And on Thursday, the critics finally arrived.
“When you are going to be elected on April 24 and you are going to form your government with, I imagine, people who are behind it, continues Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux.. What’s going to happen ? Business leaders will act like a sailor in the face of a storm. They are going to put on the storm, the little storm sail. They will batten down the hatches, then they will wait: they will stop hiring, they will stop investing. So it’s not going to be chaos. And besides, it will not have immediate effects. Because in economics, the effects, you know I think, they are long…“
We find the same principle as before: avoid making an exaggerated attack, so that it seems all the more justified. The coming attack is no less virulent! It takes the form of a spun metaphor: business leaders are captains and in the storm, they will protect their boat, and wait. A way of saying that if Jean-Luc Mélenchon were elected, he would simply make France lose five years of growth.
This argument can be effective precisely because it uses a metaphorical form. The strength of metaphors is that they hide the arguments behind images, which has the effect of making assertions that, by their nature, are questionable. Would the election of Jean-Luc Mélenchon have the effect of a “storm“ for the French economy? And would companies really stop investing? May be. But the main interested party explains to us the opposite. Whatever we think about the substance, it is therefore a controversial issue. The strength of the metaphor is that it makes it seem already cut-and-dried: it’s a subtle but effective form of disqualification.
Does this mean that Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux won the debate? The case is more complicated than that: on the one hand, because Jean-Luc Mélenchon did not hesitate to answer him. But above all because the downside of this strategy, based in part on flattery, is that it can actually lead to strengthening the opponent’s image. By acknowledging the leader of the Insoumis that he was “ready to rule”one can wonder if it is not, Thursday evening, what happened.