Referential argumentation and its ethical considerations in televised political advertising: the case of the 1993 Canadian federal election campaign.

• Author: Gauthier, Gilles
• Position: Special Issue: Condensed Mediated Argument

All political communication includes a set of denotative references to individual or collective entities. To a great extent, politicians develop their argumentative and persuasive strategies through the use of these references. In an earlier study (1994a) concerned with televised political debate, I put forward the hypothesis that the fundamental referential network of political argumentation includes four main elements: self-reference, reference to the adversary, reference to other politicians, and reference to experts. I also attempted to demonstrate how these types of references form a basis for a very specific type of arguments called the ad arguments.

Politicians refer to themselves or their own party when they attempt to illustrate their credibility. They refer to their adversaries or their adversaries' parties in order to cast doubt on the opponent's ideas or abilities. For these same reasons, they sometimes refer to other political figures, be they allies or adversaries, or to nonpartisan players whom they welcome into the debate by virtue of their recognized expertise. Of course, other kinds of denotation do exist in political communication. For example, politicians make great use of reference to the electorate. But if we consider only the actors on the forefront of the political scene, it seems reasonable to limit the true references in political communication to self-reference, reference to the adversary, reference to other politicians, and reference to other experts.

The ad arguments regroup a certain number of arguments which we have named beginning with the Latin prefix "ad". Among these ad arguments are the ad hominem argument (an attack on an opponent's person rather than on his or her ideas), the ad verecumdiam argument (an appeal to authority), the ad populum argument (an appeal to popular sentiment or prejudices), the ad misericordiam argument (an appeal to pity and sympathy), the ad baculum argument (threatening), and the ad adversarium argument (the diversionary tactic whereby discussion is turned to the subject of a common adversary or enemy).

Ad arguments have been historically identified with fallacies and therefore considered as invalid or faulty arguments closely related to sophisms, paralogisms, and other forms of pseudo-reasoning. Aristotle analyzed certain ad arguments in his On Sophistical Refutations and in the Rhetoric, and Locke proposed an initial characterization of certain ad arguments in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. However, only recently have scholars begun to develop a systematic theorisation of ad arguments in a theory of fallacies, the first being Hamblin (1970), followed by Woods and Walton (1989 and 1982), Walton (1987), Engel (1982), and many other authors who have produced pertinent or synthetic works. Among the latter, we must mention van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) and van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Kruiter (1987) on the subject of argumentation in communication.

Each of the different types of references can be used to support an ad argument. For example, self-reference and reference to experts can be used as a basis for an ad verecumdiam argument. Reference to an adversary is often a basis for an ad hominem argument. The ad adversarium argument, and certain more specific forms of the ad hominem argument, such as the "guilt by association" argument (whereby the discredit commonly attributed to a group or individual with which an opponent associates is transferred onto the opponent), are based on reference to another politician. One could also imagine that, under certain circumstances, references to an individual or individuals could allow for the development of ad populum, ad misericordiam, and ad baculum arguments.

I propose to examine the structure of the referential network developed in televised political advertising as well as the types of arguments, particularly the ad arguments, to which these references contribute. I also discuss the ethical implications of referential argumentation and reveal a distinction between ad argument and fallacy.

To undertake the research, I chose the example of television advertising in Quebec during Canada's most recent federal election campaign.(1) Canadians cast their ballots on October 25, 1993, and in so doing, they removed the Progressive Conservative Party (PCP) from power after 9 years of rule, replacing them with the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC). The most striking feature of this election, however, was not the LPC's majority win, but the rise of the new "regional" parties. The New Democratic Party (NDP) lost its traditional position as "the third-place party" to the Reform Party (RP), and the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a Quebec sovereignist party managed to gain enough seats to form the new Official Opposition. Since BQ candidates ran only in Quebec, the RP was entirely absent from Quebec, and the NDP's chances in the province were next to nil, there were in fact two separate campaigns - one in Quebec and one in the rest of the country. The difference was further accentuated by the linguistic duality which distinguishes the two Canadian communities.

For the foregoing reasons, I decided to analyze French-language television advertising broadcasts in Quebec by the three parties that were truly in the race: the BQ, the PPC and the PLC.(2) I shall attempt to characterize the referential argumentation put forth by each of these parties, highlighting their principal strategic and political considerations.

BLOC QUEBECOIS (BQ): USING OTHERS FOR SELF-JUSTIFICATION

The BQ broadcast four different thirty-second spots. Three consisted for the most part of statements by voters. Party leader Lucien Bouchard appears briefly in a single frame at the very end of the spots. In the fourth commercial, Bouchard speaks to the electorate. All four commercials repeat the Bloc's general campaign slogan: "It's time to give ourselves real power" ("On se donne le vrai pouvoir") and contain an identical two-fold message. First, they condemn Canada's federal regime and its "old" parties, the Liberals and Conservatives (explicitly mentioning them once) for their political and economic failures (the latter including jobs and unemployment, the deficit, the debt, and taxes). Secondly, the Bloc offers itself as an alternative, underlining its newness ("a new party", "new blood", "fresh ideas", "a way to the future for today's youth" - "un parti nouveau", "du sang neuf", "(des) idees neuves", "une voie d'avenir pour les jeunes") and its specific intention of defending only Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

In its televised advertising, the BQ makes two main references: it refers to opposing parties and to itself. References to adversaries are more frequent and more specific, touching on key campaign issues such as the deficit and unemployment. References to itself are more vague: The BQ presents itself as a new party whose sole objective is to defend Quebec's interests, but it never really explains either point.

Overall, the BQ does not really develop an argument using either element of its referential network, at least not in the technical sense. Instead, it simply makes a brief series of affirmations. For this reason, it is hardly surprising that there are no ad arguments in its advertising spots. In fact, the BQ adopts an approach which could be termed "highly general" or "abstract". The subjects and themes it addresses are extremely broad, and though of interest to voters, tend to be treated as disembodied notions. As I indicated above, the BQ favors sovereignty for Quebec. Because of this, the position it defends is a more ideological one than that of most other contending parties. This may, in part, account for the advertising's more abstract or intellectual nature of its advertising campaign.

Despite its vagueness, the BQ does offer a form of argumentation through comparison. The two major references in its spots, to opponents and itself, are neither independent nor parallel; they interact to form a unit of argumentation. The BQ considers itself "new and original" and particularly dedicated to Quebec by comparison with opposing parties. In this game of comparisons, attacking the adversary is essential, playing a fundamental role. Indeed, the BQ proposes itself as an alternative to the "failures" of the federal system and the "old" parties, as it sees them. This is why the BQ's messages stress criticism of opposing parties rather than the defense and illustration of its own proposals. As a new opposition party (even a reaction party to the extent that its very existence stems from dissatisfaction with the present system), the BQ has a vested interest in emphasizing the faults of the parties in power and not revealing itself too much so as not to expose itself to criticism. This probably also explains Lucien Bouchard's relatively discrete presence in the Bloc's spots. Once a party leader has attained a certain level of popularity - as was Bouchard's case at the outset of the campaign, and even before it began - it was preferable not to overexpose him. The difficulty of increasing his popularity and risk of some error, explain a low profile.

With regard to the BQ's strategy, as apparent in the referential network of the televised advertising, one major conclusion becomes evident: The BQ's campaign is run entirely at the expense of its opponents. A campaign which, without being aggressive to the point of exploiting ad arguments, is still essentially aimed at its adversaries.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY (PCP): FROM SELF-PRAISE TO ATTACKS ON OTHERS

The Conservative Party broadcast eleven different advertising commercials on Quebec's French-language television stations during the October 1993 election campaign: six thirty-second spots, one one-minute spot, and four two-minute spots. Each spot contained the same slogan: "Kim Campbell and her team, for the power we need!" ("Kim Campbell et son equipe, le pouvoir qu'il nous faut!")...