Have you ever noticed how sometimes people make a statement that gets “both sides” of an argument equally riled up, pointing fingers at the other side, believing that the other side is the one being called out? This is happening a lot more lately, and it’s pretty common among politicians and church leaders alike (maybe that’s one category, not two?). It’s similar to when someone reads their horoscope and it says that they are [list of great qualities] and right now they are about to experience [common human scenario], so they immediately think “Wow, this stuff is real. It knows me so well. I’m such an Aquarius.” In a related avenue, reading one’s patriarchal blessing, particularly for a teen or young adult on the cusp of life feels pretty similar. It helps when they tell you not to share it with others because it’s too “sacred.”
Here’s what a Barnum statement might sound like in a purely personal, non-political setting:
- You have great potential, but you don’t always believe in yourself.
- You are a caring person, but sometimes people take advantage of your kindness.
- You perform best when you feel appreciated, but you can become discouraged when support is lacking.
These statements are literally true of every human being. While they say nothing unique, they can feel to the listener like they are being understood. I’ve seen people I know post these types of statements on their Facebook page as a result of taking some kind of online quiz. The descriptions are so vague they are meaningless.
Here are some examples of phrases you might hear when a leader is using this tactic to rally support:
- “We need to take our country back.” One side hears we are taking our country back from racism or inequality. The other side hears that we are taking it back from cultural change or socialism.
- “The system is rigged against ordinary people.” Those on the left hear corporations, billionaires and Wall Street are to blame. The right hears that bureaucrats, liberal elites, and the deep state are to blame.
- “Powerful insiders don’t care about people like you.” Whoever you see as your enemy can be fitted into the ready-made villain implied in ‘powerful insiders.’
- “Hardworking Americans are being punished while the corrupt get ahead.” Everyone voter, no matter what they do, thinks they are a “hard-working American.” The right and the left each have their own list of who they think are “corrupt.”
When you combine a flattering statement with a vague description of the situation, you’re looking at a classic Barnum statement.
- “Because you care deeply about fairness, you are frustrated with how things are being run.”
- “Unlike powerful elites, you care about doing what’s right.”
- “If you believe what they’re telling you, you’re not paying attention.”
- “We stand with everyday people against injustice.”
When you hear these types of statements, you may feel energized, righteous and even angry, but you don’t feel any clearer about what to do about any of it.
It’s easy to blame those who fall for these statements, but it’s not entirely on the listener. It’s also a deliberate act by those who make these “two-sided” statements. These types of statements are called Barnum statements (I suppose because they make suckers of us all?). If they are trying to garner supporters, which is something most leaders do, they deliberately avoid alienating either side by keeping statements vague enough to let everyone think they are in the right and not being challenged. This is not necessarily an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cunning. Human emotions aren’t inherently bad, but they are easily manipulated.
Here’s a checklist to watch for to see if manipulation is happening:
- Are key terms undefined? Words like they, values, freedom, family, the system, the world, Christians, etc. If the speech never specifies who or what, you’re being invited to fill in the blanks for yourself.
- Does it flatter the audience’s identity? Consider if there are phrases like “people like you..” or “You’re the kind of person who…” or “Real patriots / disciples of Christ …”
- Are emotions doing the work instead of evidence? Are stories being used instead of facts? Are feelings (loyalty, faith, love) standing in for arguments? If emotions are the only thing presented, you’re being manipulated.
- Is there a vague enemy but no concrete solution? Manipulation includes strong blame but weak (or no) policy. If it’s getting you riled up with no action plan to solve problems, that’s manipulation.
- Are you being rushed or time-pressured? I learned this one back at my Amex days: fraudsters use time-pressure to prevent you looking into their story. “This is our last chance” or “Time is running out” are used to short-circuit your reasoning.
- Is disagreement framed as moral failure? While there are obviously positions that are morally inferior, using moral failure to shut down thinking is manipulative. “Anyone who disagrees is brainwashed or corrupt” or “Only fools would deny this …”
- Are contradictions smoothed over with vagueness? Does the speaker say the opposite things to different groups, using one version for one group and a different argument for another group? Is flexible language that could mean anything being used?
- Are complex issues reduced to one cause? Reality is messy. Black and white solutions don’t work. If you get rid of “them” (whoever that is), the problems almost always remain.
- Is loyalty being rewarded more than understanding? This sounds like “stand with us” or “join the movement” or “are you on our side?” Belonging is being offered in exchange for agreement.
If you leave feeling riled up, but with no clear plan to address the source of your emotion, the speaker has been manipulating you. If you were given tools to think, persuasion was at play. If you were told whom to hate or trust, manipulation was. Just because a speech stirs emotions or makes you feel inspired doesn’t make it manipulative.
- What examples of Barnum statements have you seen at work, heard at church, or experienced in politics?
- What has tipped you off in the past that you were hearing a manipulative speech?
- Have you followed horoscopes, personality quizzes, fortune cookies, patriarchal blessings or other types of Barnum statements? Did you find them useful? If not, why not?
- Does this checklist help you identify when these rhetorical manipulations are happening?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Hi Hawk! This post is making me think—what’s the difference between certain personal types of Barnum statements and plain good advice? Here’s a fortune I once got:
A longed-for outcome may yet be achieved. Remember, patience is a virtue.
This is so vague as applies to everyone at nearly any time, but still good advice in many circumstances (don’t forsake hope; be patient).
Or my personal favorite fortune ever:
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.
I doubt that very much; I get lots done with a certain amount of ennui, but it’s still advice worth considering (the fortune attributed the sentiment to Emerson).
I have been, in my life, so lost that universally true statements hit like wisdom: You’re angry because you’re hurt. You don’t want praise but recognition. Welp, that’s all of humanity at some point, but still what I needed to hear. Isn’t that the whole premise of a book like Proverbs?
Is your argument that those types of statements too should be treated with caution?
I guess my litmus test for a BS Barnum statement is this: Does this statement invite me to think I’m better than somebody else? If so, somebody has probably got nefarious motives.
Margie: The difference between innocuous fortune cookie advice and insidious Barnum manipulation is what comes next. With the fortune cookie, nothing comes next. You’re reminded of the merits of patience, or the value of enthusiasm, but the fortune cookie isn’t asking you to do something specific. Hopefully those little proverbs help you direct yourself towards your own pursuits (which for the sake of humanity, I’m going to hope are positive ones 🙂 These are difference from Hawkgrrrl’s Barnum statements that are generally followed by “vote for me” or “so I get to pick the TV show” or “buy these solar panels”. Fortune cookies don’t try to manipulate me into anything (other than maybe buying more Chinese food).
For my church application, one of my least favorite Mormon tactics is to blame everything on “the world”. Everyone in the class can smugly nod along, safe in the knowledge that everything they disagree with is part of “the world”. It’s the ultimate undefined term.
Hi DaveW,
Absolutely. I got that, but then I started thinking that there is a certain danger in generic good advice when we -also- believe that fate/astrology/the Spirit is telling us “this applies especially to you!” Maybe I do need persist for that longed-for outcome, but what if it’s time to move on? Even a slip of paper in a cookie can be problematic if we take it as a sign from the universe.
But x100 when people have the kinds of motives you and Hawkgrrrl listed. Any time somebody’s rhetoric steers me toward “You/we are better than them!” (and I catch them at it), they’ve lost my trust.
Go talk to the folks who are trying to get signatures for the repeal of prop 4 in Utah and you’ll be shocked at the 1984 double speak being used to get your signature.
My husband and I long ago made a policy of never buying anything if there is a time limit or high pressure. For example, my husband and I were seriously thinking about a car once. The salesman said he would give us a few minutes to think about it, and instead of going away, he hovered. Then, about 3 minutes later, while we were still actively discussing but about to get the car, he applied pressure. We walked, kind of regretting it, but rules about high pressure are rules. It may have just been a supper anxious sales man under pressure from his boss and we may have gotten him fired. ? His problem and ultimately his boss’s problem. We found out later that this sales dealer had a bad reputation for high pressure and were glad we walked. When my husband got out of the Air Force, there was a recession and he couldn’t get anything in his field. We are loyal to one car brand, so he was sure he could sell them. But that dealership wanted him to use supper high pressure and pound every nickel possible out of people, even when there wasn’t another nickel. He quit with no other job prospects.
We have also walked away from the guy smiley kind of slimy too friendly types. It may be a sales technique or it may just be his personality, but we don’t trust it. Funny story, we had this bishop and really he had a great reputation. When he worked with the young men, the youth got together a joke campaign to get him elected bishop. It was led by some of the young women actually, but the young men put up their share of money for campaign posters. The posters looked totally real and red (name) for bishop. These were put in front lawns where he had to drive past to get to work, then promptly taken down after he saw them. I remarked at the time that he would make a good politician because he had that fake friendly stuff down pat..or used car salesman. But after he really became bishop, we got to know him better and it wasn’t fake, he was just that friendly and really loving and kind. It still Creeped me out a bit. Anyway, we had a good laugh when we found out he was a car salesman part time along with something else.
Some of the church statements, especially a few from Oaks, have been the type of ambiguous statements about vote for good honest candidates, that the right see as saying “never vote for a Democrat” and the left or progressing Mormons see as saying “for crap sake don’t vote for Trump. Oaks may not intend them to be Barnum statements, but he leaves it unclear so everyone picks their favorite villain who they think is not honest. If he meant to say that he thinks Trump is not honest, he should dare to say so. Instead he tried to stay politically neutral while the evangelical preachers are openly saying Trump is God’s anointed. If the evangelical can name Trump, the liberal churches and especially anyone standing up for honesty should be able to break “political neutrality” and stand up for morality. Instead we have a convicted felon and accused child rapist as president—and this was known when he was elected. But honest and ethical church leaders were too chickenshit to say that he was a dishonest crook and righteous Christians should not vote for a convicted felon who has been realistically accused of rape by over a dozen women. Even after he was convicted of fraud, it was crickets from our church leaders naming him as dishonest.
Margie: I’m at a business convention right now, and it is full of these innocuous aphorisms. The underlying messages seem to be: 1) if it’s not working, it’s your fault, and/or 2) you have to pay more money for it to work better. Here’s one example from conferences past. A motivational marketing guy’s schtick was to show a slide that said “Opportunity is nowhere.” Then he changes it to say “Opportunity is now here.” That sounds great. Sure we should all be thinking of where the opportunities are. But it also avoids any real deep problem solving, and this is the same guy who made such disastrous marketing decisions that he kneecapped our business for five plus years, and ultimately got fired. So, catchy aphorisms aside, what he brought to the table was running a whole lot of small business owners out of business.
But of course, remember, it’s their fault because even when he made terrible decisions that were out of their control, they just had a bad attitude and chose to focus on the negative.
DaveW: Blaming everything on the world is such a perfect example. There was a talk several years ago that someone gave where they were using what I assume were conservative dog whistles, but they landed differently for me. They said that the world was changing and that now things that used to be good were bad and things that used to be bad were good. What they probably meant: it used to be bad to be gay or trans and now it’s acceptable. What I heard is it used to be acceptable to be a bigot and now it’s frowned upon. Although not so much anymore. You can’t go twenty posts on X without seeing someone use the “R” slur. I also got de-prioritized for “hate speech” when I used the term “cisgender” to reply to a post that literally used the phrase “chicks with d*cks.” Will the real hate speech please stand up?
The most Barnum statement I can think of from the church is that the family is under attack.
Who exactly is against families? And why? And what are we supposed to do to make families great again? Rhetorical questions. Jack need not respond.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to all Barnum statements. Particularly those with a religious context.
The attack on the name “Mormon” was a particularly dubious Barnum statement. The attack conveyed the idea that members must use a community name that is approved by the head of the community. At the same time, it denigrated the name that that same community had used for itself for over a century and a half.
This put members in a Pandora’s box. Should they accept the counsel of the current leader based on the idea that the leader cannot be wrong, while following the counsel is a tacit admission that previous leaders were wrong?
The prohibition of the Mormon name has destroyed the sense of community that so many members have. But perhaps Barnum himself would be proud of that, as the members have become hot dog eating circus attendees.
I would like to echo DaveW’s observation that many Mormons (and Christians in general) tend to blame everything on “the world”. Consider Isaiah’s warning, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20/2 Nephi 15:20) But who are the vaguely defined “those”?
I assume that most church members read this and immediately think of “worldly” tolerance for alternative lifestyles, non-traditional gender roles, drug use/abuse, rising hemlines, pre-marital sex and abortion as examples of calling evil good in the latter days. As DaveW said, “Everyone in the class can smugly nod along, safe in the knowledge that everything they disagree with is part of ‘the world’.” They double down when their own biblical morality is labeled as “intolerant” and “oppressive” — the world calling good evil. In response, they may actively campaign and vote for restrictions on medical care, deny welfare and humanitarian aid to the needy, remove books from library shelves, exclude moral deviants from clubs and sports, post obscenity-laced hate messages in Internet forums, etc.
I could cite more extreme examples of mildly unkind or expressly evil behavior justified by a biblical understanding of “good”, but at some point I think Jesus expects everyone to ask themselves, “Lord, is it I?” If we take them at face value, the scriptures were written for us. When Isaiah/Nephi issues a warning, shouldn’t we look first at ourselves and ask if we are calling good evil and evil good? Are we treating our neighbor — even those whose morals or politics we disagree with — as Jesus would? Are we showing everyone love, patience, and kindness? Are we among “those”?
I don’t have any new examples beyond the good ones already shared. I just wanted to point out that the Book of Mormon specifically talks about the use of flattery in multiple places. I think many members haven’t considered these kinds of concrete examples of flattery and instead think of the notion only in the abstract. Once you see it, it’s everywhere, including in a lot of advertising, and not just political ads. I tried to point out these kinds of examples when I once taught Book of Mormon as a seminary teacher years ago.
I can’t find the post right now, but Andrew S. analyzed the Church’s statement condemning racism issued a couple years ago and pointed out a lot of this sort of vagueness. One of the lines was something like “it’s wrong to persecute someone based on the color of their skin”. One side could read that to condemn anti-Black racism; the rightwing whites who believe they’re victims of reverse racism could read that to condemn the (imaginary) anti-white racism. Speakers have to be clear about what they’re condemning. The Church’s PR department is savvy enough to know they were using doublespeak.
Another Barnum-speak is “government overreach.” Both sides condemn government overreach. Government overreach is bad! Okay, are we talking about the government overreach that is trying to micromanage peoples’ sex lives and gender expression? Or the government overreach that wants to regulate the amount of capital held by banks so they don’t crash again like they did in 2008?
This post provides an excellent list of factors that expose manipulation. I would add nostalgia to the list. “Look what they took from you!” as a caption to a nostalgic, idealized 1950s moment is manipulation. What exactly did they take from you? Who is they? How did they take the unidentified thing from you? How will hating “they” return us to that idealized moment?
As a lawyer, I’ve been trained to look for specifics. Evidence is built on specifics. You can’t litigate a vibe. You can’t prove a vibe. That’s why propagandists (Barnum speakers) change the subject as soon as you start asking about specifics. Be very wary of someone who won’t give specific information.
A second thumbs up to Chadwick for pointing out the imaginary attack on the family. And to everyone who pointed out the vagueness of “the world” as an enemy.
Anytime Gov. Cox from Utah speaks is “Disagree Better,” “Utah Way,” or talking about Virtue in his state of the state address this year, he invokes Barnum speak. Of course, he’s been trained well as a lawyer and active LDS member. No matter what he says, what he means is it’s my way or nothing.