The political rules of rhetorical engagement
Story by George Korda | Photography by R. Daniel Proctor
Appeared in Cityview Magazine, Vol. 42, Issue 4 (July/August 2026)
When hearing, seeing, or reading political messaging, it pays to remember that politics is a word game. To play well, know the rhetorical rules of engagement. Sometimes things can be true, and not true, at the same time.
U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett’s name was drawn into the Republican Knox County mayoral primary because of something he didn’t say, and which candidate Betsy Henderson didn’t say he said. Nevertheless, she was questioned in the media for misrepresenting what Burchett hadn’t said, though it actually wasn’t misrepresented.
A WVLT-TV story said, “Betsy Henderson has announced a slew of endorsements for her run for Knox County mayor, but one of those ‘endorsements’ isn’t as solid as she says.” What Henderson said was this: “Thank you, Congressman Tim Burchett for your confidence and vote. It’s such an honor to earn your support!” Henderson planted this endorsement flag in response to a Burchett video in which, the story said, he planned to vote “for whoever keeps Knox County taxes steady.” In a field that included Larsen Jay and Kim Frazier, Henderson was the only candidate who pledged no new taxes.
Had Burchett endorsed her by name? No. Also, did Henderson thank Burchett for his endorsement – or thank him for lining up with her? It was the latter, eminently usable by the Henderson campaign. But instead of basking in the glow of the congressman’s announced intention to vote, Henderson was drawn into a “controversy” as to whether Burchett had endorsed her. His campaign staff said that the congressman had made no endorsement, and the video stated his position, which was that he’d vote for the candidate that would hold the line on taxes. And Henderson was the only one who’d made such a declaration.
The news media naturally gravitates toward indications of political conflict, and when prey doesn’t come to them, they look for it. Even when it shows up to be eaten, they might not like it. While living in Nashville in the 1980s I was a spokesman for Tennessee state government, a U.S. Senate campaign press secretary, and then an account executive with a large public relations firm. I had a lot of friends in the Capitol Hill press corps, and we’d often go in a group for lunch.
During one election cycle reporters complained about a boring race for Congress between Democrat U.S. Rep. Bill Boner and Democrat challenger, State Rep. Steve Cobb; Cobb refused to attack Boner, despite Boner carrying heavy negative baggage. There was no fire, no life, in the election. The next year there was a knock-down, drag-out, battle for Nashville mayor, with candidates Phil Bredesen and Boner savaging each other at the cost of nearly $4 million for a mayoral election. There was political blood on Nashville’s streets. At lunch one day the reporters were complaining about the ugly campaign and that candidates weren’t discussing issues.
“Wait a minute,” I said, reminding them of what they’d said only the year before. “Whatever way a campaign is going, you want it the other way.” They looked at each other around the table. Then, one of them smiled and said, “Yeah.”
That’s not a knock on the media: conflict is what news consumers tend to want. With respect to Henderson and Burchett, a “controversy” bubbled up over whether he had really endorsed her vs. her claim he had endorsed her. Burchett never endorsed her by name; however, he said he’d vote for the candidate with whom he agreed on taxes – and that was Henderson. She didn’t thank him for his endorsement, but for his confidence and vote. Based on Burchett’s position, she wasn’t wrong. But it could be made to seem wrong.
Henderson could have avoided the problem had she said this: “Voters should know I’m the only candidate who agrees with Congressman Tim Burchett on no new taxes.” Or this: “When Congressman Burchett says he’s voting for the candidate who’s pledged to keep taxes steady, he’s talking about only one candidate: Betsy Henderson.” Either statement would have protected Henderson from being criticized for claiming an outright endorsement; attempts to gin up controversy would be seen as a search for conflict. Instead, the fallout probably left some people thinking Henderson was trying to mislead them.
In campaign advertising and rhetoric, the rhetorical rules of engagement mean to look past what something might seem to mean, to not miss what it truly means. And that’s the truth. ◆
Comments are closed.