IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@EOC//FWD//CD/TCNET/UNCLSF/TTYP
"Where's the Beef?"
Heinrichs' reference to various so-called "commonplaces" in Chapter 11 referring to Death Taxes, DREAMERS, No Child Left Behind, and similar seem to be situational, as they are uniquely attributed to a particular program or policy. What happens when the slogan is commandeered for another purpose?
A case in point was the 1984 Wendy's "Where's the Beef" ad that became a hallmark political statement by Democratic challenger Walter Mondale (D-MN) directed at his primary opponent Gary Hart (D-CO) during the contest for the White House;
"Mondale's answer to Senator Gary Hart's proposal to cut taxes, improve social welfare and increase access to health and education, all at the same time. It effectively questioned these plans, which were like a beefless hamburger—empty and with no substance—with no chance of being realized given the US budget deficits at the time." (NCBI)
This classic example of using the enthymeme from Wendy's to illustrate the hollow promises of a political candidate certainly characterizes what Heinrichs was searching for in Chapter 11, but failed to successfully relay in his examples. The chapter was titled "Gain the High Ground." An enthymeme because the one key ingredient, the beef, was missing.
Cited:
NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369151/
Jesse Jackson's "Misery Index" & other commonplace slogans, https://www.wabe.org/wheres-the-beef-and-other-moments-from-past-democratic-debates-in-atlanta/
Beef image, https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/80s/2018/01/10/on-this-date-wendys-first-asked-wheres-the-beef/
One other note: An enthymeme is in the same category as a dangling participle such as:
"Waiting in line at the soup kitchen, the billionaire gave the homeless girl the keys to a brand new Ferrari."
Hello Kelsie,
You have encapsulated what is problematic about the entire line of reasoning when it comes to enthymemes and audiences. Why bother to tell the listeners something they already know and probably don't need to hear again? Is the speaker so insecure that he is afraid that what he might say could offend somebody, so is forced to speak in riddles where the audience has to decipher the meaning?
As for the very nature of an enthymeme, what is the ultimate purpose if the speaker can describe "in no uncertain terms" what is necessary without trying to trick the listener into something that may not be true? The only thing any of this ties together is that it might not be that ethical to use this technique.
Hello Jennifer,
If the only way a speaker can get an audience to agree is to leave out crucial details or trick the listeners by having them draw ill founded conclusions, then the purpose of rhetoric is to deceive, not to clarify. Apparently, it is designed to create false illusions in order to subvert or obfuscate the facts, which seem irrelevant when it comes to winning the argument.
The evidence for that is never more clear in modern journalism where factual evidence takes a back seat to the reporter's personality and his/her "anonymous sources" which are taken for granted to be real and truthful by the reader. The anonymous source is in itself the single most deceptive enthymeme created in the field of journalism.
IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@EOC//FWD//CD/TCNET/UNCLSF/TTYP