Pitfalls of Righteous Rhetoric

On June 19 of this year, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) hosted its second annual â??March for Marriageâ? in Washington, D.C. An article posted on NOMâ??s website two days before the march expressed hope that the event would â??encourage each of us to continue standing up without fear in the legal, political, and cultural spheres to preserve marriage and every childâ??s right to both a mother and a father.â? In an email to supporters sent out the same day, the national lobbying group Concerned Women for America (CWA) also promoted the march, saying that â??Godâ??s model for marriage is under attack, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to stand for truth in this area.â? This urgent, battle-ready language is typical of conservative Christian rhetoric on the issue, which depicts gay marriage as a force that will debase American families, victimize children, and ruin the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, supporters of gay marriage portray groups like NOM and CWA as the real threats to the nationâ??s values, its children, and its families. The pro-gay Family Equality Council recently filed an amicus brief in a Virginia gay marriage case, focusing on the children of same-sex couples and arguing that â??the denial of marriage as an option for their parents affects their legal well-being, personal self-esteem, and sense of purpose.â? On both sides of the debate, activists and spokespeople identify themselves as â??supporters of marriageâ? and portray their adversaries as dangerous forces, not only in terms of this issue but also in terms of Americansâ?? well-being and the well-being of America. Leslie Dorrough Smith has a new name for this kind of political reasoning, which she argues has deep roots in American political history. She has coined the term â??chaos rhetoricâ? to describe it, and she offers a rich analysis of its uses and significance in her new book, Righteous Rhetoric: Sex, Speech, and the Politics of Concerned Women for America. Smith defines chaos rhetoric as a particular kind of â??emotion-ladenâ? narrative of national decline, which focuses so intently on a perceived threat â??to a beloved entityâ? that it draws attention away from any gaps in the speakersâ?? logic or any shifts in their priorities. Smith argues that â??chaos rhetoricâ??s signature is not necessarily its connection with reality, but its persuasive value.â?