A paranoid-style speech is aggressive and war-like, coherent and rational, withstands limited burdens, and involves elaborate evidence and preferably deductive logic. The conspiracy must occur during a time of dramatic change. The conspiracy must also meet the epistemological assumption made by the paranoid style: it must not exist. Eisenhower’s address exhibited some of these symptoms, but not all. Instead, rhetorical scholars should view the Eisenhower address as a new form of conspiracy rhetoric, one not entirely distinct from the paranoid style but a form of rhetoric that merits reclassification.

A. Duane Liftin, a rhetorical analyst of the Eisenhower speech, states in his critique that “nowhere did Eisenhower intimate that there was any sort of conspiracy behind the development of the (military-industrial complex),” and that “his worry was that a combination of otherwise benign forces would become so out of balance as to threaten the very core of our society” (Liftin 204). But Liftin ignores a key phrase in the speech; Eisenhower said that America “must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” (Eisenhower). The importance of this statement is twofold. First, Eisenhower specifically mentioned that the system allowed power to be sought by the military-industrial complex, meaning that potential for conspiracy existed. So even if we accept that Eisenhower did not accept a conspiracy, his language indicated acknowledgement of its potential. As a result, the speech can still be analyzed through lenses of conspiracy rhetoric. Indeed, guarded rhetoric may be a symptom of conspiracy rhetoric in the mainstream. Second, the main crux of Eisenhower’s speech was to warn the American people of possible dangers. Liftin admits that Eisenhower attempted to emphasize the economic dangers of the military-industrial complex, and that “as of that time it is clear that he viewed the threat (of the military-industrial complex) as merely potential, not actual” (Liftin 203-205). The weight Eisenhower placed on the potential opens the speech up for criticism of the potential rise of conspiracy. Moreover, the military-industrial complex is a motive force that eventually changes society. However, Eisenhower did not paint an image of a cabal of executives and scientists working to create a new world order. Instead, this force was unknown to most Americans. This fits another major gap within Hofstadter’s paranoid style: it is a symptom of a group of people (in this case, scientists and executives) who unintentionally created a force to change society. It is an unwitting conspiracy.

The most recognizable feature of the paranoid style in Eisenhower’s speech is the existence of social change and upheaval. Eisenhower addresses “threats, new in kind or degree” that “constantly arise” (Eisenhower). The primary threat is the rise of the military-industrial complex as a result of the U.S. no longer being able to “risk emergency improvisation of national defense” (Eisenhower). The military-industrial complex is “new in the American experience” (Eisenhower). The “technological revolution” that took place around this time is “largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture” and “the free university ... has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research” (Eisenhower). Eisenhower made the case that the 1950’s are a period of change and social reorganization. These social changes had a widespread influence on American politics and lifestyles in subsequent decades. There was also significant upheaval as the Soviet Union became a superpower that could elicit a conspiratorial response from the general public. So Eisenhower’s speech meets the first criteria of the paranoid style.

The second standard of paranoid style is that of war rhetoric. Eisenhower’s final address was thought-out, well-reasoned, and not primarily aggressive. Liftin says that Eisenhower’s concerns were “specific problem areas that he as a preeminent military man and president clearly foresaw” (Liftin 203). This, of course, does not mean the rhetoric is not in the paranoid style: Hofstadter argues that style is not about “the truth or falsity of ... content” (Hofstadter 5). In addition to Eisenhower’s public presence, this reasoning and forethought caused a reduction in aggressive rhetoric. To use blatantly aggressive, war-like speech would portray Eisenhower negatively and detract from his intentions. But Eisenhower did use some war rhetoric. The military-industrial complex and the scientific-technological elite are called a “(threat), new in kind and degree,” and while both are crucial to change in the country, they “must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance ... lack of (balance) eventually finds imbalance and frustration” (Eisenhower).

Eisenhower’s speech began by characterizing the military-industrial complex simply as threat, but he quickly became more alarmist. There may be an “imperative need for this development,” but at the same time, the American people “must not fail to comprehend its grave implications” and must guard against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence,” because “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” (Eisenhower). Eisenhower condensed a nation’s entire defense structure into one entity, the military-industrial complex, and warns against undue influence by it. He created a scapegoat, a clear “other,” and advised his audience to be wary of this “other.” While it certainly is not militant in nature, it bears noting for its eerie similarities to war rhetoric. Eisenhower moved onto a discussion of the scientific technological elite, first stating that “the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists” (Eisenhower). The “solitary inventor” invokes thoughts of American pioneers like Edison or Ford working on new technological advances. Eisenhower asserted that this inherently American role is being “overshadowed” by groups of scientists in laboratories. The choice of the word “overshadowed” indicates a negative connotation, and Eisenhower expanded on these negative thoughts by saying that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” within the new system (Eisenhower). This language glorifies the traditional American inventor and looks at the new scientific revolution with suspicion and concern. Eisenhower emphasized this outlook when he says that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite” (Eisenhower). Here we see a clear threat to the United States: something that evokes the otherization of the new scientific class created after World War II. Eisenhower’s speech emulated some of the aggressive rhetoric found in the paranoid style, yet he was not a bomb-thrower. Eisenhower’s reputation as a statesman caused him to restrain his language. While he could emulate the aggressive nature of the paranoid style, he had to tread carefully.

The other two categories by of conspiracy rhetoric are relatively assessable. Eisenhower did not present excessive amounts of evidence, nor are his burdens of proof particularly limited — he asserted a possible problem with a new source of power. Eisenhower stated very little evidence outright; instead, he used his thinly veiled concerns about the Soviet Union to stir his audience. The Farewell seemed to propose a new understanding of the military-industrial

complex rather than create an elaborate case for it. It is also difficult to determine whether Eisenhower was using inductive or deductive logic based on the content of the speech; it is difficult to tell how Eisenhower constructed the initial argument.

Eisenhower’s speech presents its reader with the following characteristics of the paranoid style: it occurs during a period of social change, and it uses somewhat militant rhetoric by hinting at an “other” that jeopardizes the American way of life. But it is unfair to take these factors and conclude that Eisenhower was under the influence of the paranoid style. The connotations surrounding the paranoid style make Eisenhower sound like a radical, which is inaccurate. It is further important to remember that “we all have our paranoid moments” (Davis 6). While Eisenhower’s rhetoric may be similar to the paranoid style, it is unfair and inaccurate to label it as such. Instead, this speech is evidence of a new subset of rhetoric related to paranoid style: it is a new voice, the cautionary voice.

Imperative to this cautionary voice is a false epistemological assumption, that conspiracies are fundamentally false. Hofstadter never addresses the rhetoric used when conspiracies actually exist. Davis hints that conspiracies are derived from a specific mindset, but he never asserts that conspiracy can be well-founded. Pfau comes closest to this conclusion when he acknowledges that conspiracies in the past “were not imagined or guessed at; they happened” (Pfau 12). So how can we describe the rhetoric of a conspiracy advocate who is right, or at least has the possibility of being right? Whether a “conspiracy” exists is irrelevant here: Eisenhower not only presented a case that is well-reasoned and theoretically possible, but the events following his address have proven his legitimacy. The mere potential of conspiracy merits creation of a new theoretical construct, and it is indeed the biggest difference between this style and any others.

The cautionary voice strikes a unique balance. First, it must be rational and feasible. Second, it must not offer moral clarity, nor does it cause immediate concern, or demand rapid action. Rather, the concern is merely a warning for abuses that may occur during the period of heightened social change. Third, this new style cannot be too inflammatory; it exists in the mainstream. And while it must create an “other” to serve as a threat, the speaker must temper his rhetoric to avoid sounding paranoid. The speaker’s tone must convey that he is open to fallibility; worry and concern may be major distinguishing features of the cautionary voice. As a result, the person advocating for the existence of conspiracy welcomes argument and avoids placing blame on dissenters. Fourth, the cautionary voice must take place in a period of upheaval and social change. All conspiracy rhetoric, regardless of style, cannot exist without the threat of a new force or changing ideals.

To summarize, the cautionary voice is both feasible and rational, takes a grounded approach present in the mainstream, and occurs during the same period that generates paranoid style. What distinguishes this style from the paranoid style is its presence within the mainstream. The language is significantly less aggressive, and instead of emphasizing fear of what lies around every corner and advocating the use of force to stop it, the cautionary voice aptly warns its audience of potential for abuses of power, either through an unintentional conspiracy or through the potential for conspiracy. The cautionary voice can certainly apply to non-presidential rhetoric and can even apply to rhetoric that does not insinuate conspiracy. The cautionary voice should be seen as both an alternative to the paranoid style as well as a separate step on the “continuum from extreme abnormality to relative normality” that Davis discusses (6).

There are other instances in which the cautionary voice appears within mainstream political rhetoric. Washington’s Farewell Address and his concern with American entanglement abroad is conceivably one such scenario. Michael Pfau suggests Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech as well. Pfau says that it is possible to “appropriate valuable aspects of the paranoid style and selectively excise that which is problematic and unproductive” (Pfau 149). Pfau argues that “the conspiracy argument in the ‘House Divided’ seems to correspond most closely to the conductive argument, in which premises converge to support a conspiratorial conclusion” (Pfau 150). This is similar to the cautionary voice: it provides premises that lead to conspiracy. The cautionary voice and Pfau’s conductive argument theory are both rather radical departures from the paranoid style and traditional conspiracy rhetoric. Eisenhower’s Farewell and Lincoln’s “House Divided” are both examples of the cautionary voice.

In light of this analysis, the distinction of the cautionary voice seems logical; however, there is currently insufficient material for its formal establishment. Therefore, examination of similar speeches is crucial. This paper has outlined for gap in the political conspiracy rhetoric and presented the Eisenhower Farewell as an example of the breach.

This paper is a simple introduction to conspiracy in the mainstream and presidential involvement. Further studies should be conducted on a wider variety of presidential responses to conspiracy theory. Perhaps presidential farewell addresses are generally delivered in the cautionary voice; an investigation into farewell addresses as rhetoric could extend or elaborate on conspiracy theory and warning rhetoric. The cautionary voice may be an unrecognized form of conspiracy throughout presidential and political rhetoric and deserves to be examined in a manner befitting any other rhetorical theory.

 Presidents incorporate conspiracy rhetoric more commonly than conceived. The president should move toward the center of political discourse and use the cautionary voice rather than engage the paranoid style like fringe groups. Furthermore, the president should not underestimate his ability to silently discredit a lunatic fringe. The president should be prepared not only to answer conspiracy but also to be aware that he or she may use conspiracy theory in the course of warning the nation regarding a problem. The stigma surrounding conspiracy theory is overblown: sometimes there really is truth that needs to be uncovered.§