Rhetoric and economic policy.

• Author: Montanye, James A.

POOH-BAH: Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

PITH-SING: Corroborative detail indeed! Corroborative fiddlestick!

--William S. Gilbert, The Mikado

Economists generally accept the chestnut assertion that "economic policy is an art, quite separate from and independent of, the science of economics" (Coddington 1973 [1983], 237; see also McCloskey 1990, 136, quoting Montague 1900). The causes and extent of this dichotomy are seldom considered. By contrast, rhetoricians deny that any dichotomy exists. They believe "that science and policy are the same, they are rhetoric, they are sophistry, all the way down" (I quote an anonymous referee). To the rhetorician, economics is a process by which persuasion is used to exchange error for truth in the marketplace of ideas. To distinguish between science and policy is to misapprehend the nature of economics.

The rhetorician's argument is undeniably elegant, but it is unsatisfying to the extent that it blocks inquiry into an aspect of economics that has caught economists' notice for more than a century. The public-choice program in economics provides convincing evidence that the rhetoric of economic policy interferes systematically and persistently with the exchange of error for truth in a way that the rhetoric of scientific economics does not. The reason, I conjecture, is that sophistry (the antithesis of principled rhetoric), whose process lies closer to force than to voluntary persuasion, is more welcome in the policy realm. This observation is neither a moral judgment nor a philosophical quibble over the nature of objective truth. It is a judgment based on criteria that are identifiable in theory and perceivable in practice.

Rhetoricians, I believe, would agree that force can be a powerful tool of persuasion, but they stop short of characterizing it as a rhetorical device. Some means of persuasion are not inherently rhetorical. Rhetoric is one of many regions along a continuum of human behavior in general and of communication behavior in particular. Principled rhetoric dissolves quickly into other forms of persuasion--first into mild sophistry, then into outright deceit, and ultimately into abject force. Blithely accepting the claim that "it's rhetoric all the way down" not only surrenders important ground to the rhetoricians' monopoly franchise but also prevents valid and meaningful distinctions from being drawn between science and policy in economics.

I maintain here that the substantive distinction between the science of economics and the art of economic policy springs from the relative ability of each conversational realm to constrain the play of sophistry. I show that the rhetoric of economic policy dissolves most easily and persistently into sophistry where property rights are weakly protected and where the state inclines toward substituting force for opinion.

In this essay, first, I sketch rhetoric's evolution from ancient to modern times. Next, I consider the relationships among rhetoric, force, and opinion, and then I explore the nexus between rhetoric and economic policy. Finally, I arrive at an examination of rhetoric's constituent elements in a policy context.

Rhetoric

Rhetoric, which commonly is defined as the method of persuasive public speaking, has been well considered and sharply criticized through the ages. In the fourth-century B.C., Plato's Gorgias (1997a) skewered sophists, politicians, and other rhetorical tricksters whose sole purpose in discussion is persuasion at any cost, frequently through appeals to raw emotion and usually without regard to knowledge and truth. Writing in this vein two millennia later, the philosopher John Locke criticized rhetoric and its all-too-willing consumers, noting that "[i]t is evident how much men love to deceive and be deceived, since rhetoric, that powerful instrument of error and deceit, has its established professors, is publicly taught, and has always been had in great reputation" ([1693] 1995, 411). Similar sentiments run against rhetoric today, reflecting a belief (mistaken, I argue) that rhetoric and sophistry are one and inseparable.

In Phaedrus (1997b), in contrast to his Gorgias, Plato accepted that truth does not advocate itself anymore than economic science creates its own consequences, and he acknowledged that arguments promoting truth must be tailored to suit different audiences. Aristotle's primer, Rhetoric, responded to Plato's call for a disciplined approach to public speaking. Aristotle saw rhetoric as a morally neutral tool that serves both good and evil. "What makes a man a sophist," in Aristotle's view, "is not his faculty, but his moral purpose" (1954, 1355b 15-25, p. 24). Rhetoric is merely "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion" ([1355.sup.b]25, p. 24). Aristotle's rhetorical principles conflated dialectics (the art of logical discussion) and ethical politics, and they were intended to increase the efficiency with which the rhetorical process exchanges error for truth in public forums. Aristotle considered his principles to be suitable for dealing with "the main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches," including "ways and means [that is, state revenues, or, more generally, economic policy], war and peace, national defense, imports and exports [economic policy once again], and legislation" (1359b 15-25, p. 35).

The economist and rhetorician D. N. McCloskey (1985, 1990, 1991, 1994) argues comprehensively for rhetoric's place in economics. She characterizes economic science--all science, for that matter--as comprising a bundle of rhetorical devices and literary forms, some of which are quantitative, others not. Rhetoric is an essential and inescapable element of all economic conversation, regardless of whether the conversation is among trained economists only or encompasses a wider and less-instructed audience. Following Aristotle, McCloskey (1994, 61-63) treats rhetoric as a tetrad of elements comprising a "dialectic" of facts and logic, on the one hand, and a "narrative" consisting of metaphor (Adam Smith's "invisible hand," for example) and an enveloping story, on the other hand. (Deceit and force are notably absent from this conceptual structure of rhetoric.) McCloskey deconstructs economics using the critical methods of rhetoric and literature.

Rhetoric, Force, and Opinion

Rhetoric as a practical matter is a civil means by which self-interested individuals attempt to affect favorably others' opinions and ultimately their behavior. Besides being the process by which individuals and societies exchange error for truth, rhetoric is the process by which individuals' rights are discovered and ascribed and by which property is exchanged. Rhetoric's contemporary image is colored in large part by these positive attributes, notwithstanding its inherent capacity to create havoc as well as wealth. Recent work in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, by comparison, emphasizes the low-cunning aspects of human nature, with scholars in these areas "leaning more today toward the view that communication may best be understood if we view it as evolving to manipulate and deceive, rather than to transmit information" (Low 2000, 177). Communication behavior is not limited to genteel persuasion and cooperation, but extends to cover every means, both fair and foul, by which individuals build private utility in public and private life. The economic model of human behavior implies that principled rhetoric is employed only where it appears, on balance, to be the best means to a given end. It is not used where other means of persuasion, such as deceit and force, are expected to achieve the desired ends more efficiently.

Rhetoric implies voluntary persuasion. Deceit and force, by comparison, imply assault. The philosopher Sissela Bok argues that "[d]eceit and violence ... are the two forms of deliberate assault on human beings. Both can coerce people into acting against their will. Most harm that can befall victims through violence can come to them also through deceit" (1978, 19). Deceit and violence are closely substitutable means of persuasion over a wide margin, and societies have established legal limits for both. Rhetoricians who reject deceit on moral and efficiency grounds but include it within the legitimate limits of rhetoric owe us an explanation.

The only principled explanation is a partial one. It follows from John Stuart Mill's inquiry concerning the liberty of thought and discussion. Mill believed that the "gravest"...