On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Liza Featherstone wrote:
> ANSWER is saying "Bring the Troops Home Now" and I think it's a better,
> clearer slogan in many ways, expressing concern for the safety of these
> people without in any way "supporting" militarism.
You're right that it is clearer as an argument. But slogans don't persuade as arguments, they persuade as rhetoric. And I think the other is better rhetoric. It starts with the common slogan that almost commands assent and then turns it on its head.
When I was marching I felt annoyed by it, as if we were giving in halfway each time we said it. But when I watched TV reports I completely changed by opinion. It was the one slogan that newsreaders repeated. I saw it used on both CNN and NY1 to sum up "what they wanted." It literally succeeded in framing the event. And I think the reason it showed up so consistently in woman-on-the-street interviews -- thus providing a stunning display of being on message (and as we know from the big lie, repetition counts) -- was that after you hear it chanted for an hour, it becomes automatically activated in your mind by the question "What do you say to people who say we have to support our troops?" Which is the ultimate goal of rhetoric.
Michael