Introduction
The phrase ‘to thine own self be true’, one of Shakespeare's most oft quoted lines, has been interpreted as a statement in favor of behaving according to one's ‘true’ inner moral compass. The Self is perceived as a definable entity that one's behavior must consistently follow. However, the fact that this ‘pearl of wisdom’ is uttered by Polonius, one of the most memorable ‘foolish’ characters in Shakespeare's tragedies, during a cliché-ridden speech to his son Laertes, hints at a more cynical view towards this apparent platitude. Can we assume that Polonius was acting true to himself when he agreed to spy on Hamlet, an act that led to his own death, and, indirectly to the deaths of Ophelia and Laertes? Perhaps the Bard is taking a more skeptical view at the possibility of consistent behavior reflecting a true Self?
The performance of political consistency is defined in terms of an interactional problem (Billig Reference Billig1987), cognitive dissonance (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003), or a discursive challenge (Duranti Reference Duranti2006), namely as a dilemma, between ‘being true to oneself’ and catering to others’ expectations (Sclafani Reference Sclafani2015). This dilemma affects political actors’ communicative behavior when engaged in enhancing their credibility (Gruber Reference Gruber1993; Thompson Reference Thompson2000; Teven Reference Teven2008), projecting relatability (Sclafani Reference Sclafani2015), and monitoring audiences, who seek evidence for trusting their political representatives (Cialdini Reference Cialdini1993; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman Reference Mayer, Davis and David Schoorman1995).
Significant research has been dedicated to the first part of the equation—that is, to the notion of acting consistently (or performing an appearance of consistency) as a central political enterprise. Researchers have illustrated that political parties build reputations based on specific values and policies (Petrocik Reference Petrocik1996) while constantly justifying ‘compromises’ within the coalition (Martin & Vanberg Reference Martin and Vanberg2011). Individual politicians were found to self-reflexively monitor their performance to communicate consistency between beliefs and actions, proving that they are trustworthy or a good fit for a public position (Gruber Reference Gruber1993; Thompson Reference Thompson2000; Duranti Reference Duranti2006), while developing variant strategies to either ‘address’ or ‘avoid’ issues and thus cope with the accusation of being a ‘flip-flopper’ (Lempert Reference Lempert2011). Studies have illustrated, for example, that politicians that manifest a strong commitment to long-term strategic goals that require sacrifice hold more consistent attitudes than those focusing on short-term tactical goals (Montpetit Reference Montpetit2012). This strain of research suggests that although consistent policies may limit the politicians’ maneuverability (Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014), a correlation between espoused political attitudes and actions is a sought-after feature of political performance (Petrocik Reference Petrocik1996; Peterson, Slothuus, & Togeby Reference Peterson, Slothuus and Togeby2010). As consistent and predictable behavior increases trust (Cialdini Reference Cialdini1993; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman Reference Mayer, Davis and David Schoorman1995), politicians invest efforts in constructing consistent identity to mobilize voters (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003; Duranti Reference Duranti2006; Wodak Reference Wodak2009; Sclafani Reference Sclafani2015).
On the other side of the equation, with the gradual process of marketization of politics (Lempert & Silverstein Reference Lempert and Silverstein2012), mediatization of politics (Strömbäck & Esser Reference Strömbäck, Esser, Strömbäck and Esser2014), and the growing dynamism of the political environment (Norris Reference Norris2011), the need to cater to different demands challenges efforts to manage a consistent set of values. The increasing temptation that a politician change positions due to ‘poll-watching’ and, more generally, rely on the advice of political strategists and public relations experts, emboldens the challenge of establishing consistent positions over time (Lempert & Silverstein Reference Lempert and Silverstein2012). In addition, within today's global and instantaneous media environment, in which messages are constantly being compared for inconsistencies with messages uttered in different temporal and spatial contexts by media and political actors, the consistency challenge is particularly acute (Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014). The requirement from elected officials to accommodate numerous audiences, to balance among the demands of continuing earlier policy, to maintain political alliances, and to respond to changing circumstances compels them to appease, make amends, and whitewash inconsistencies in policy and messaging (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003; Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014).
Nevertheless, balancing among conflicting demands entails potential damage to a politician's consistent self-image (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003; Lempert Reference Lempert2009). Studies that focus on attempts to control the risk to consistent self-image have illustrated how political actors utilize discursive strategies when designing disparate messages for audiences with different expectations (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, & Mullett Reference Janet B., Black, Chovil and Mullett1990; Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014). These studies demonstrate that the design of public speech is a constant process of negotiation between the need for a consistent concept of Self and the need to connect with disparate audiences, while coping with a complex political environment.
The need to appear consistent is emboldened by the rise of personality-based politics (Blumler & Kavanagh Reference Blumler and Kavanagh1999), in which political actors must continually withstand credibility tests that focus primarily on their (mis)conduct (Thompson Reference Thompson2000). While Thompson posits political scandal as the central type of credibility test, we argue that the ongoing need to communicate and perform consistency serves as a credibility challenge in the age of personalized and mediatized politics. Such a challenge emerges in a variety of political situations in which the public is concerned with the credibility of politicians—monitoring campaign pledges (Naurin Reference Naurin2011), attuning accountability interviews (Bull, Elliott, Palmer, & Walker Reference Bull, Elliott, Palmer and Walker1996), and presenting messages on controversial diplomatic issues (Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014), to name a few. If a politician is deemed to have contradicted an earlier statement or acted in contradiction with a policy, she may be accused of being inauthentic, thus, failing a credibility test.
As a cloud of distrust constantly follows politicians’ trails (Schudson Reference Schudson1999; Norris Reference Norris2011), perception as ‘being true to oneself’ is a precious asset in politics. In this study we adopt an inductive, discursive approach to examine how politicians define the notion of consistency, and what consequences they ascribe to consistent behavior. Such a perspective is important for several reasons: first, the performance of consistency is a crucial concern in efforts to withstand credibility challenges; second, the growing complexity of the mediated political environment illustrates the need to understand how politicians manage impression while navigating between the conflicting needs for credibility and maneuverability; finally, despite its importance, limited scholarly effort has been invested in the theoretical development of the concept of political consistency.
The article is structured as follows: we first illustrate the defining elements of consistency identified in previous research. After explaining our methodological approach, we examine politicians’ meta-discourse to extract the meanings political actors ascribe to consistency and the types of consistency that can be inferred from their statements. We then analyze how political actors define the transformative aspects of consistent behavior. Finally, we conclude by engaging in a broader discussion of how a political actor's approach to consistency can reflect both positivist and performative approaches towards the relationship between language and political reality.
The meanings of (political) consistency and its defining elements
Before defining the core elements of consistency, it is essential to distinguish between two related terms that are utilized in the literature to describe a similar notion: consistency and coherence. The relevant literature illustrates that consistency is the term generally used by political actors themselves when speaking about their own practical actions, attempting to differentiate themselves from those who are inconsistent (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003; Sclafani Reference Sclafani2015). The emphasis, both on behalf of political actors (as illustrated below) and in the literature itself, is on the practical level of producing similar actions over time and space. Conversely, coherence is described as the production of an intelligible Self (Duranti Reference Duranti2006), continuity, and recognizable narrative structure (Ochs & Capps Reference Ochs and Capps2001; Meade & Robles Reference Meade and Robles2017), and can thus be viewed as a consequence of produced consistency. As political actors tend to narrate themselves as ‘consistent’ rather than as ‘coherent’, this study focuses on various iterations of the former term; however, we do refer to literature that studies coherence, due to the close relationship between the two terms.
Reviewing the literature that deals with the challenge of producing consistency suggests that the notion has four components that are guided by the principle of uniformity: actor, action, time, and space. These components involve presenting oneself as acting in the same manner over time and space, which we are articulated in the actors’ metadiscursive statements, as we illustrate in our analysis below.
The actor
Consistency at the actor's level is related both to the cognitive realm (i.e. beliefs, the ‘guiding logic’ of actions) and the social realm (words and deeds performed during political interactions). The cognitive realm suggests a psychological approach, in which ‘cognitive dissonance’ must be resolved to achieve consistency in an actor's mind (Festinger & Carlsmith Reference Festinger and Carlsmith1959). To produce consistency, coordination between two or more different ‘guiding logics’ must be achieved. When two related beliefs ‘are mutually inconsistent, one of them will change to restore consistency’ (Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003:252).
The social realm focuses on the communicative and interactional aspects of consistency (Billig Reference Billig1987; Duranti Reference Duranti2006; Stapleton & Wilson Reference Stapleton and Wilson2009). Pursuant to Goffman's (Reference Goffman1959) dramaturgical theory, this approach views a social actor as a flexible entity who performs various actions in context-dependent roles in order to persuade voters that the actor is a ‘trustworthy person whose political ideas and actions are better fitted to the wants and expectation of the general public than those of his opponents’ (Gruber Reference Gruber1993:3). This approach emphasizes the social nature of actors, who pursue consistency vis-à-vis audiences with different communicative demands and social expectations.
The action
When presenting a coherent Self in the social realm, an actor should coordinate among her beliefs (the ‘guiding logic’ of actions that takes the form of manifested policy), communication (statements, speeches, campaign pledges, etc.), and deeds (symbolic or physical actions). Mapping the possible links among beliefs, communication, and deeds, consistency can be achieved through the coordination of actions in at least five different communicative situations: (i) coordination between policy and statements, (ii) between policy and deeds (voting in parliamentary contexts, for example), (iii) between statements over time and space, (iv) between deeds over time and space, and (v) between a statement and a deed. Failing to coordinate among policies, communication, and deeds may result in dysfunctional administration (Edwards & Wayne Reference Edwards III and Wayne2013), entailing the risk of being accused by political rivals or by media commentators as being opportunist, frivolous, and thereby untrustworthy (Kampf Reference Kampf, Östman and Verschueren2013). Conversely, coordinating between political beliefs and actions was found to correlate with increased public trust (Cialdini Reference Cialdini1993; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman Reference Mayer, Davis and David Schoorman1995) and with persuasiveness regrading controversial issues (Woodly Reference Woodly2018).
Space
Consistency demands that the same action be performed by the same actor (or different actors that are guided by the same principle) in different spaces. Spatial inconsistency can be an expression of incongruence between backstage and front-stage behaviors (Goffman Reference Goffman1959), for example, between private and public conduct (Sclafani Reference Sclafani2015). Exposing inconsistency between an actor's conduct in the private, personal sphere and the public sphere may arouse a scandal (Thompson Reference Thompson2000), and thus pose a threat to the political actor's career. Spatiality can also take the form of synchronizing between beliefs and actions in different geographical and cultural spaces. The delicacy of this issue was demonstrated in previous research in the context of message targeting during international negotiations. While domestic audiences generally demand that politicians present messages that reflect a consensual, national interest, foreign audiences demand messages designed towards flexibility and concessions (Putnam Reference Putnam1988; Shenhav, Sheafer, & Gabay Reference Shenhav, Sheafer and Gabay2010). To confront this conflict of expectations while maintaining consistent self-presentation, statespersons resort to various message gap strategies, creating an appearance of synchronic coherence over public spaces (Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014).
Time
Producing consistency demands performance of the same action by the same actor at different points in time. Politicians are frequently judged for temporal inconsistencies, as media professionals or political opponents reveal recorded evidence of something that a politician said or did in the past that is at odds with what is said or done in the present (Antaki & Leudar Reference Antaki and Leudar2001; Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003; Duranti Reference Duranti2006). To produce ‘existential coherence’, politicians invest discursive efforts in presenting themselves as actors whose past, present, and future actions, beliefs, and evaluations follow clear principles, none of which contradict one another (Duranti Reference Duranti2006). Strategies for presenting oneself as consistent were documented when candidates present a policy decision as a ‘natural extension’ of some past experience (Duranti Reference Duranti2006), when making campaign pledges (Naurin Reference Naurin2011), when resorting to various types of ‘defensive justifications’ when accused of inconsistency (Billig Reference Billig1987; Stapleton & Wilson Reference Stapleton and Wilson2009), or when utilizing phrases which are ‘congruent with those of popular or well-known historical, archetypal, or stereotypical figures’ (Meade & Robles Reference Meade and Robles2017:8).
In sum, producing consistency is regarded as a cognitive and interactional problem (Billig Reference Billig1987; Neuman & Tabak Reference Neuman and Tabak2003), one that an actor must reflexively monitor on a daily basis (Duranti Reference Duranti2006). Despite its centrality, there has yet to be a study that attempts to define consistency from an actor's perspective and to characterize the discursive mechanisms employed for constructing a consistent image. This study attempts to fill this research lacuna by answering the following research questions:
(i) What meanings do political actors ascribe to consistency?
(ii) How do political actors perceive the consequences of consistent behavior?
The above-described four elements of consistency is utilized to understand the perceived meanings and consequences of consistency.
Method
In order to provide an actors’ perspective on the meanings and consequences of consistency, we examined cases in which Israeli politicians reflexively described themselves as being consistent in various everyday communicative situations (parliamentary talk, news interviews, public speeches, etc.). Politicians’ meta-discursive comments served as a source for interpreting how they define consistency and evaluate its consequences. The meta-discursive approach is defined as ways in which participants in discourse are involved in a negotiation over norms and meanings (Craig Reference Craig and Donsbach2008; Martinez Guillem Reference Martinez Guillem2009), manifested in their stances with respect to (the re/definition of) terms and concepts (Ilie Reference Ilie2003). This analytic approach enables the disclosure of how politicians present themselves as consistent within their professional environment. Politicians’ articulation of the concept when publicly speaking about themselves and others allowed us to assess their explicit definitions of consistency and its utilization as political performance in the course of the existential enterprise of defining a consistent Self.
The meta-discursive statements of consistency were collected from Ifat Digger Hebrew media database, an exhaustive research tool that archives data from a range of media including newspapers, news websites, television, and radio from 2006 to the present. We conducted a keyword search of two terms in Hebrew that are commonly used to denote consistency and the deviation from consistency: עקבי ‘consistent’ and זגזג, מזגזג ‘zigzag’ (and the equivalent to ‘flip-flop’), respectively. Through the search of these terms, their inflections and the strings in which they are embedded—for example, אני עקבי ‘I am consistent’, מדיניות עקבית ‘consistent policy’, לא לזגזג ‘don't zig zag’—between 2006 and 2017, we collected 194 statements in which political actors specifically employed one of the ‘consistency’ terms.
All statements were analyzed to identify how political actors define the concept and the meanings they ascribe to consistency, resulting in a thematic organization of various consistency types. The categories were built inductively, based on politicians’ meta-discursive meanings and consequences attributed to consistency. Our analysis was based on the theoretical assumption that political actors present their knowledge and attitudes about the functional meanings and consequences of concepts when speaking about them (Ilie Reference Ilie2003; Martinez Guillem Reference Martinez Guillem2009). Resorting to semantic concepts (such as lexical choices, idioms, and metaphors) and the defining elements of consistency (actor, action, space, and time), this stage facilitated an examination of how political actors define the relations between state of mind, actions, and the political implications of consistent behavior. The categories of analysis constructed were not mutually exclusive (for example, the construction of a consistent character often involves the portrayal of a consistent ideology); however, we determined the categorization of specific examples based on the emphasis used by the political actors when describing themselves.
In addition, we adopted the concept of positioning to explore the gamut of situated conceptualizations of ‘consistency’, manifested by political actors. Previous research on political discourse has demonstrated that meta-discursive talk may serve as a significant positioning device for politicians in mediated interactions (Weizman Reference Weizman2008). Defined as the contextualized, dynamic, reflexive and reciprocal negotiation of identities, roles, stances, and relationships (Weizman Reference Weizman2008), the concept was thus applied in the present study to analyze the discursive strategies that politicians employ to position themselves as consistent actors vis-à-vis inconsistent others.
Israeli political discourse was chosen for a comprehensive qualitative analysis as it suggests several interesting features for the study of consistency. According to Katriel (Reference Katriel1986), the direct manifestation of intentions is characteristic of the Israeli dugri speaking style. Resorting to consistency can be thus understood as a cultural resource that resonates with Israeli public expectations for assertiveness, directness, and sincere ‘straight talk’, and is thus used meta-discursively by politicians for positioning purposes. In addition, the Israeli case suggests several similarities with Western political cultures, which allows for generalization. First, as an extremely polarized multi-party system (Sartori Reference Sartori1976) within a society defined by overlapping ideological, economic, religious, and ethnic cleavages (Shamir & Arian Reference Shamir and Arian1999; Rahat, Hazan, & Ben-Nun Bloom Reference Rahat, Hazan and Bloom2016) that exhibits several common structural features with other consensual democracies such as Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, and the Netherlands (Lijphart Reference Lijphart2012), Israeli politicians cope with numerous consistency challenges. Their discursive dilemma fluctuates between consistently representing one group, party, or ideology and catering to broader publics, thus risking being perceived as inconsistent. Second, since the 1990s, Israeli politics has undergone processes of political and media personalization that correlate with similar processes in Western countries (Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer, & Shenhav Reference Balmas, Rahat, Sheafer and Shenhav2014). In the context of personality-based politics, Israeli politicians, similar to political actors in other Western societies, must continually withstand public credibility tests that focus on their consistent behavior, in order to convince the public of their suitability for office (Thompson Reference Thompson2000).
The meaning of consistency
An actor's definition of consistency is accessible when a politician engages in a meta-discourse, that is, when speaking about what a specific concept means from a personal standpoint. As demonstrated below, the statements analyzed represent a meta-discourse that allow us to point out the core elements political actors ascribe to consistency, identify types of consistencies, and their consequences.
In politicians’ talk, consistency relates to desired character traits such as trustworthiness and clarity. When speaking about consistency, political actors distance themselves from the untoward practice of equivocation (Bavelas et al. Reference Janet B., Black, Chovil and Mullett1990), while adopting an approach to language that perceives words as direct depictions of beliefs and intentions (Katriel Reference Katriel1986). This perception is demonstrated in the following statement by the head of the Israel Our Home party, Avigdor Lieberman.
(1) (This Morning, Israel Radio, January 22, 2009)
Resorting to the ‘a word is a word’ tautology (line 6; a well-known idiom in Hebrew, which is similar to ‘take my word for it’), this statement takes a meta-discursive position on what words are meant to do. Words do not ‘explain’, but instead directly ‘present’ an inner state of mind. This antipoetic approach to language argues that words must not embellish or beautify, but present an apparently unmasked ‘inner truth’ in the clearest way possible. Despite the purported risks entailed in being true to oneself (lines 3–4: ‘what will be will be’), Lieberman's view suggests that by linking between beliefs and actions (simple, direct words stated repeatedly over space and time), political actors can gain public trust.
Manifesting the same relationship among consistency, clarity, and trustworthiness as foundations of consistency, Naftali Bennett, Chair of Jewish Home ultra-nationalist party, stated during a speech at an event marking the anniversary of the ‘unification’ of Jerusalem:
(2) (Vardi Reference Vardi2016, June 5)
The message operates on the meta-discursive level, describing how one is to speak consistently: don't stutter, don't get confused, don't zigzag—in short, speak unequivocally. To be consistent, the same actor (‘we’, the Jewish Home party), must perform the same action (lines 2–3: ‘state clearly’) over geographical space (lines 4–5: ‘in Hebrew, in English, in Russian, in French’),Footnote 1 and over time (lines 6–7: ‘during the summer, during the winter, when there are elections, and when there aren't elections’). The truthfulness encapsulated in consistency becomes apparent in the link created among beliefs, actions, and reality. The negation of stuttering and confusion reflects a consistent state of mind, manifested in clear, direct statements that depict the truth about objective reality (according to Bennett): ‘The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel’ (line 2). Clearly, this approach points not only to the meaning of consistency but also to how it is achieved: coherence should be pursued in all aspects of political existence: cognition, action, and reality. Such a perception of the relations between communicative actions and reality adds an additional dimension to Lieberman's approach: words are not only a depiction of internal reality, but can also be direct depictions of external reality.
Types of consistencies
When speaking about consistency, political actors in our data set perceive the concept as related to three central content categories, all of which are viewed as essential to desirable political conduct: (i) consistency as an internal characteristic, (ii) consistent steadfastness to a particular ideological stance, and (iii) consistent behavior in parliamentary activities.
Character consistency
Consistency can take the form of political leadership traits. Character consistency is linked both to the cognitive realm, when portrayed as an internal virtue and to the social realm, when politicians portray themselves as independent actors who can withstand political pressures. In reflexively referring to character consistency, politicians manifest their awareness of performing within the context of personality-based politics, in which one of their key tasks is to create and maintain a trustworthy self-image. Such an awareness is demonstrated in a statement made by Minister of Finance Moshe Kahlon, regarding his plan to resolve the housing crisis.
(3) (Sikoler & Mimlan Reference Sikoler and Milman2017, May 2)
Referring to consistency as a character trait, Kahlon presents himself as possessing the essential qualities for politics. He argues that consistency, determination, and fearlessness are essential qualities required of a politician (i.e. cognitive consistency), utilizing the ‘pay a price’ metaphor to explain that such qualities are not always in the politician's best interests (line 4). Social consistency between beliefs and actions—that is, actualizing what one believes in—is presented as a necessary quality, despite the consequences. Those who are not willing to bear the consequences of consistency are not suitable to the field of politics.
Consistency as a character trait can be related to other personal qualities necessary for credible leadership, as illustrated in a statement by the Israel Our Home party, explaining how it plans to market Party Head Avigdor Lieberman during the 2008 election campaign.
(4) (Weizmann Reference Weizmann2008, December 10)
Consistency is portrayed as a character trait associated with credibility and dependability. A leader should speak clearly (lines 8–9: ‘not stutter’) and intend what he says (line 7: ‘a word is a word’); only by adhering to these personal traits can one become a trustworthy leader who can withstand pressure to give in on principles, despite the risks involved.
Ideological consistency
The presentation of Self as adhering to ideology suggests that even in an era characterized by decreased party-based politics (see Blumler & Kavanagh Reference Blumler and Kavanagh1999; Thompson Reference Thompson2000), ideology still plays an important role in producing consistency. The meta-discursive references to ideology demonstrate that the boundary between ideological politics and personality-based politics is less definite than what previous literature suggests, and seems to ignore the important role of ideology in performing the political persona. As ideological politics involves a set of discourses that produce unwavering attitudes (Eagleton Reference Eagleton1991), consistent messages are well-suited to the presentation of clear ideologies and construction of a reliable political image.
An ideologically rooted performance, according to which messages must remain the same, irrespective of time and space, can potentially relate to the cognitive realm (coordination between two or more beliefs) or the social realm (coordination between a beliefs, policy, and actions). As beliefs can be accessed only through overt manifestations of actions, consistency can be illustrated in reflexive messages that present correlation between actions and clear ideological stances. This is illustrated in the following statement of Naftali Bennett, in a television interview.
(5) (Meet the Press, Channel 2 June 4, 2016)
Referring to consistency over time, Bennett relates the consistent action of saying the same thing daily ‘for many years’ with staunch economic and security policies. As in the above examples, such a determined approach entails a political risk, as its consequences can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Despite this risk, Bennett presents an uncompromising ideological Hawkish stance on ‘the Land of Israel’, which is backed by active self-positioning as a ‘safeguard’ who opposes giving-up ‘one centimeter of land’ (lines 7–8). Referring to ideological consistency thus allows him to position himself as a steadfast and determined actor and to implicitly position others as flaccid and inconsistent on ideology, who are willing to compromise on fundamental issues.
Ideological consistency can also denote consensual ideology, which has been presented consistently over time and across political divides (i.e. metaphorical space). Such claims can serve as resources for presenting the group as allegedly united around a controversial issue, thus useful for overcoming in-group tension and disagreement. This is demonstrated by Minister of Housing, Uri Ariel, who refers to a consensual policy, presented consistently over time and across political divides, in an interview on Army Radio.
(6) (Thursday Evening, Army Radio, June 16, 2013)
In this quotation, the Minister of Housing is reacting to international condemnation to settlement building in the Occupied Territories, by claiming that settling Jews in these areas has always been Israel's policy, regardless of ideological differences (lines 2–3). In contrast to the first statement, which posits ideological consistency as belonging only to those who speak directly (see extract (5)), this utterance produces ideological consistency, by way of presenting historical coherence (Meade & Robles Reference Meade and Robles2017), namely referring to ideological consistency as consensual, irrespective of the historical right-wing–left-wing divide in Israel. Reacting to international condemnation to settlement building, the Minister of Housing claims that settling Jews in these areas has always been Israel's policy, regardless of ideological differences. In so doing, Ariel invests discursive efforts in consolidating the boundaries of the ‘we’ group for mobilizing support to a political cause (De Cillia, Reisigl, & Wodak Reference De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak1999).
In addition, ideological consistency can be presented as an individual's constant stance over time, although inconsistent with the larger group ideology. Dissociating oneself from the group serves as a strategy to produce an individual persona, who is not reluctant to pay a price for her/his beliefs and actions. For example, Member of Knesset Meir Shitrit (member of the centrist Kadima party) stated in an interview on Channel 2 news on August 19, 2008:
(7) (Six with…, Channel 2 August 19, 2008)
In this statement, Shitrit self-positions himself as a victim of his ideological steadfastness. A consistent ideological stance in favor of peace is presented as a personal sacrifice that the individual is willing to make, at the price of being ‘lonely’ and ‘uncomfortable’ within the group structure (lines 4–5). His disassociation from the group is presented as a heroic, positive value, a sacrifice made for the sake of consistently staying true to one's own values. It emphasizes an individualist character, thus potentially allowing him to gain public support for his ideological steadfastness that is discursively distinguished from other members of his party. In contrast to other cases of (self-) exclusion (Koller & Davidson Reference Koller and Davidson2008), however, his party members are not discursively degraded for inconsistent behavior; they are implicitly positioned as a collective that holds consistent views.
While these statements present consistency as a value for defending a particular ideological stance, we found instances in which political actors position themselves as ideologically consistent without specifying the ideology to which they adhere. Such a statement is presented by Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman in an interview:
(8) (MSN website 2010, February 4)
While this message operates on the same apparent ideological level as Bennett's, it does not refer to any explicit ideological content. Lieberman states that he has ‘basic principles’ that are the ‘same’ over time but gives no clue as to which principles were so clearly stated. He provides a hint of his principles by resorting to one of the most conventionalized political metaphors—the journey (Lakoff Reference Lakoff and Ortony1993). By speaking metaphorically (line 5: ‘the path to a real peace is long’), Lieberman avoids offering concrete details as to the content of his principles, thus creating an appearance of ideological consistency without directly linking principles with actions or external reality. Arguing that ideologically consistent principles are so transparent that they need not be uttered allows for the utmost flexibility regarding policy shifts, and enables freedom of action, regardless of specific ideology (Chilton Reference Chilton1990).
Practical consistency
In addition to character and ideological consistency, politicians refer in their meta-discursive statements to consistency as a practice. Performed mainly in parliamentary settings, practical consistency is also frequently employed for shaping the relationship between Self and the group. As such, this type of consistency relates to the social realm, where politicians present themselves as consistent over time in words and actions, without specific reference to character traits or ideological pillars.
The first meaning of practical consistency emerges in statements that describe determined parliamentary behavior over time. For example, Member of Knesset, Faina Kirschenbaum, of the Israel Our Home party, states:
(9) (This Morning, Israel Radio, May 3, 2012)
Consistency is portrayed as determined political action that will succeed in passing a law through resolute behavior, despite obstacles. The synchronization between the same actions (efforts to pass a law) is made in this case by the same party at different points in time (next week or during the next Knesset).
As in the case of ideological consistency, consistent parliamentary behavior is also utilized to define the political actor's conception of Self-group relations. For example, Minister of Communications Ayoub Kara stated in an annual event for Likud party activists:
(10) (Channel 7 2017, January 27)
Using a military metaphor that is popular in organizational discourse (soldier, see Stockton Reference Stockton2006), Kara conceives political consistency as deferring his own free will and capacity as an independent Self to the ‘orders’ given by the prime minister and the party. As in other organizational contexts, the ‘good soldier’ metaphor encapsulate ‘elements of citizenship behavior and dutiful conduct’, with two contradictory implications: sacrifice and loyalty on the one hand and withdrawal of free will on the other (Stockton Reference Stockton2006:16). In this case, the actions of party members must be synchronized and abide by the Prime Minister's direct orders (referred in Kara's statement with another popular metaphor in organizational discourse, ‘faithful to the path’; see Lamberg & Parvinen Reference Lamberg and Parvinen2003). The political actor here conceives of the Self as a mere appendage of the group, adopting a kind of ‘groupthink’ (Janis Reference Janis1972), rendering actions as extensions of group dictates.
Lastly, practical consistency is also manifested in statements that explain reasons for refusing to cooperate with political rivals. As the State of Israel is a parliamentary democracy based on coalition governments, the nature of the coalition a politician is willing to participate in is essential for political cooperation and for constructing political identity (Rahat & Hazan Reference Rahat and Hazan2013). This is illustrated by Labor Party Member of Knesset Shelley Yechimovitch, who states on Army Radio:
(11) (Making Order, Army Radio, December 7, 2014)
Yechimovitch opens her statement with a quotable assertion (Clayman Reference Clayman1995)—‘just not Netanyahu’ (line 1). She then justifies her consistent refusal to join a Netanyahu-led government (i.e. the same deed over time) by illustrating what happens when centrist parties decide to join a Netanyahu-led coalition (using a time-related metaphor to emphasize the untoward consequences—‘at the end of the day’; lines 4–5). The steadfast stance of refusing to compromise the Self to join the group is portrayed by Yechimovich in practical terms (line 5: ‘every coalition partner is destroyed’), a lesson that other politicians ought to learn.
The mirror of this stance regarding consistent unwillingness to compromise Self to join the group is illustrated by Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who states in an interview on Army Radio on February 1, 2015:
(12) (Nir Reference Nir2015, February 1)
In this quotation, Lieberman takes a resolute, if defensive, stance in which a nonideological, right-wing party refuses to partner in a left-wing government. The stance is used to illustrate the steadfast consistency of the political actor, basing the credibility on a past record of consistent parliamentary behavior (i.e. consistency over time). Thus, within the context of Self-group relations, practical consistency can also define the Self through the identity of the party with whom which he or she is unwilling to partner with in governance.
In this section, we have illustrated that consistency is treated as a positive political value and desired behavior, which attests to an actor's truth-telling (depicting inner or external reality), determination (same actions over time and space), steadfastness (uncompromising stance, in spite of risks), and clarity (direct links between beliefs, action, and the world). Political actors were found to use the term consistency in order to describe their leadership qualities at the character, ideological, and practical levels. The meanings they attribute to consistency suggest a descriptive perception of language on two levels: words are not only a depiction of internal reality, but can also be direct depictions of external reality. Further analysis of meta-discursive comments on consistency allowed us to identify another layer of meaning political actors ascribe to the term—the performative.
The perceived political consequences of consistency
When speaking reflexively about what it means to be consistent, political actors adopt a specific view about the relationship between inner beliefs, manifested actions, and political reality. Accordingly, communicative actions are viewed as direct depictions of one's inner-truth or objective reality. The direct link between internal and external worlds characterizes consistency as an indicator of truth-telling and trustworthiness. In addition to linking internal and external worlds, consistent behavior is perceived as having the performative power to transform political reality. This advocated connection between beliefs, actions, and a new political reality serves as an alternative approach to the positivist approach discussed above. Accordingly, communicative actions are not only a depiction of a state of mind or a state of affairs, but are also performative (Austin Reference Austin1962), namely constructing beliefs and political reality. By attributing transformative qualities to consistency, advocates of consistent political behavior believe that performing the same action over time and space can have political and diplomatic consequences.
The performativity of consistency can be traced in at least two way: first, in the perlocutionary act made by the speaker, that is, the intended consequences of presenting oneself as consistent. According to Austin (Reference Austin1962:118), ‘the perlocutionary act may be either the achievement of a perlocutionary object (convince, persuade) or the production of a perlocutionary sequel’. The speculative consequences are identified in meta-discursive statements of speakers regarding the effect of consistency on others, namely in the form of attributing admiration, appreciation, respect, and so on, for consistent behavior. Second, speculative consequences of consistency take the form of audience's uptake, which involves reaction to what the speaker intended to do when issuing a consistency claim (Sbisà Reference Sbisà2009), that is, the actual consequences of presenting oneself as consistent. This type of consequence is identified when addressees respond to claims of consistency, manifesting their acceptance or rejection of its intended illocutionary force (see Cohen Reference Cohen1973; van Eemeren & Grootendorst Reference van Eemeren and Grootendorst1984).
The perlocutionary effect of consistency, that is, that which consistent behavior is believed to accomplish in the world, is apparent, for example, in the following statement by Naftali Bennett.
(13) (Kedar Reference Kedar2016, June 9)
Referring to international pressure on Israel to cede territory for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Bennett argues that if ‘we’ disseminate ‘sharp and determined’ (i.e. consistent) messages, the ‘world’ will stop pressuring Israel on this issue (line 5). The exclusive ‘we’ in line 1, implicitly referring to the gap between left and right wing in Jewish-Israeli discourse, transforms into an inclusive ‘we’ in line 4. This transformation implies that if only the Israeli left wing would speak consistently with right-wing messages, the perlocuionary effect would be foreign identification of ‘strength’, resulting in nonintervention (line 5: ‘the world [would] leave us be’). Bennett also emphasizes the negative consequences of inconsistent speech, implying it leads to war, as demonstrated by his warning that ‘until then, we will have to liberate Jerusalem every day anew’ (lines 6–7).
Consistency can also build up a specific respectable reputation, which in diplomatic discourse is related to the maintenance of negative face needs (Chilton Reference Chilton1990). This speculative perlocutionary effect is demonstrated in the Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom's statement, given in (14).
(14) (Cohen Reference Cohen2011, September 19)
This statement advocates for the government consistently staying true to its principles as an effective formula for achieving honor and respect in the Arab world. The implication of such a statement indicates that a conciliatory, flexible position would only result in being dishonored by the Arab world. Such a vision, like the previous example, connects consistency with fortitude and strength, while attributing a reputation-building perlocutionary effect to consistent behavior.
The consequences of speaking consistently over time and space can also be identified in audience's uptakes, namely in the form of overt criticism, public debate, and initiation of legislation processes. For example, similar to Bennett and Shalom, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely draws a link between speaking consistently and altering the stances of foreign actors. Upon taking office in 2015, she held a conference of diplomats in which she instructed the diplomatic corps to cease arguing in favor of Israel's control of the West Bank through an apologetic stance. Instead, she pointed to the need for spatial consistency—saying abroad what is stated at home—as a means for changing reality.
(15) (Ravid Reference Ravid2015, May 21)
Despite her persuasive efforts, the media coverage of this conference was highly critical of her instruction. News items stated that ‘people were in shock’, referring to the surprise that the diplomatic corps were being instructed to abandon diplomatic messages when engaging with foreign audiences, in favor of messages generally presented to domestic audiences, based on absolute religious dictates. One of the items reported that ‘many of the attendees raised their eyebrows at her words’ (Ravid Reference Ravid2015, May 21). The reported uptakes illustrate an opposition to ‘being truth to oneself’ when attempting to advance diplomacy. In this instance, the act of consistently presenting uncompromising messages over different geographical and cultural spaces is at odds with the need to cater massages to foreign audiences who have different demands than domestic audiences (Shenhav et al. Reference Shenhav, Sheafer and Gabay2010; Friedman, Kampf, & Balmas Reference Friedman, Kampf and Balmas2017).
Interestingly, a similar critical uptake of such spatial consistency exists at the other end of the political spectrum as well—the consistent messages of human rights organizations that are critical of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Within the world of global communication based extensively on soft power, human rights organizations target messages to mobilize foreign pressure against the human rights transgressors (Kampf & Katriel Reference Kampf, Katriel and Carbaugh2016). Although messages easily flow across national boundaries, a central argument used to criticize human rights organizations is that while it is legitimate to be critical of policy within the national borders, presenting such criticism on international stages defames the state abroad and damages national sovereignty, by inviting outsiders’ intervention in domestic issues (Elad Reference Elad2016, October 16). Nevertheless, Israeli human rights organizations consistently state the same criticism abroad as domestically, as demonstrated in the following example in which the Director of B'tselem, Hagai Elad, stated at a speech to the UN General Assembly:
(16) (Elad Reference Elad2016, October 16)
The need to ‘repeatedly state [this] in every place’ (line 1) reflects a belief in consistency over space and time as a politically legitimate strategy. Although this belief is shared by right-wing politicians (as the statements made by Bennett, Shalom, and Hotovely indicate), its implementation by human rights NGOs has resulted in volatile criticism in public discourse. Following Elad's testimony at the United Nations, Coalition Whip David Bitan attempted (but failed) to pass a law, which would revoke the citizenship of Israelis who condemn Israeli policy at international forums (Lis Reference Lis2016, October 21). While some political actors dispute the accuracy and truth claims purported by human rights organizations, many attack them for the fact that they provide these testimonies in foreign public forums; that is, the main issue at hand is presenting consistent statements in foreign and domestic contexts (Lis Reference Lis2016, October 21). Following the principle of mamlachtiut (the Israeli version of statism),Footnote 2 critics argue that it is legitimate to ‘air your dirty laundry’ at home, but not beyond the borders of the state. Engaging with international audiences is even deemed by some politicians to be treasonous (Greenstein Reference Greenstein2016, October 14), even though the messages of organizations like B'tselem are readily available internationally at the click of a button.
In sum, a consistent group approach towards a particular issue is viewed as having the capacity to alter an adversary's beliefs and thus transform political reality. Consistency may result in speculated and actual consequences (in the form of criticism) in political contexts in which nuanced, diplomatic behavior is required, or when breaking the ‘united front’ with government policy.
Concluding remarks
Our analysis of meta-discursive statements indicates that performing an appearance of consistency is a constant political enterprise that demands, at the synchronic level, coordination between beliefs, actions, and geographic spaces (i.e. acting consistently over space), and, at the diachronic level, coordination between beliefs, actions, and time (i.e. acting consistently over time). Politicians view consistency as a sought-after value that correlates with positive traits such as truth-telling, determination, steadfastness, and clarity. Consistency is also perceived as a desired mode of behavior, relevant to all levels of political conduct: it is an essential character trait, an indication of ideological fortitude, and a basis for practical policy realization. The cognitive and social qualities of consistency imbue the act of linking between beliefs and action over time and space with political importance: they serve politicians’ quest for enhancing credibility.
Political actors view the reflexive production of consistency as both a depiction of inner beliefs and external reality, and as a tool for transforming political reality. According to the ‘positivist’ approach, consistency entails a complete coordination among cognitions, actions, and the external world. Words and deeds are deemed reliable reflections of internal states of mind and external states of affairs. Through the manifestation of ‘inner truth’ and ‘objective realties’, the image of a credible and dependable actor is constructed. Conversely, the ‘performative’ approach views consistency as having transformative qualities. Accordingly, coordination between cognitions and actions can have an impact on external reality. Presenting oneself as consistent is thus beneficial not only for enhancing credibility but also for reputation-building as a powerful and persuasive actor.
The positive attributes ascribed by political actors to consistency transform the concept into a central tool for managing impressions and for shaping political relations. Presenting the Self as consistent entails that the actor possesses other positive traits such as credibility, determination, steadfastness, and robustness. Consistency is also a meta-discursive means for evaluating and defining Self-group relations, either by positioning the Self as adhering to the group's decree or, conversely, as independent from the consensus, positioning the actor as an individualist, consistent only with her beliefs.
Even though most uses of consistency in political discourse are positive, at times political actors ascribe it with negative meanings and consequences. In international contexts, consistent behavior is associated with insensitivity, a lack of understanding of the diplomatic profession, and can even be portrayed as treasonous. Thus, despite consistency being generally associated with positive traits, its overall evaluation is context-dependent. In public diplomacy contexts, some level of inconsistency or equivocation is accepted and even encouraged in order to create resonance with desperate audiences (Friedman & Kampf Reference Friedman and Kampf2014).
Although a quantitative examination of the issue is beyond the scope of this study, our corpus indicates that ideologically steadfast political actors, particularly those on the extreme right, most clearly advocate for consistency. Previous studies have illustrated that inconsistency often correlates with eras of political change and upheaval (Shenhav et al. Reference Shenhav, Sheafer and Gabay2010), generally performed by ‘pragmatic’ political actors who aim to facilitate changes in a political status quo and public opinion (Friedman et al. Reference Friedman, Kampf and Balmas2017), or by politicians who posit themselves in the center of the political spectrum. Pragmatic political actors generally present more nuanced or diversified messages, which can change over time (thus demonstrating an ability to react to changing political conditions), and over space (thus illustrating an ability to connect with audiences that present variant demands). As consistency is generally associated with positive values, political actors who attempt to constitute change or to appeal to the broadest possible electorate, face the challenge of presenting themselves as consistent, and can suffer from the quick deterioration of their public credibility (Tolson Reference Tolson, Ekström and Patrona2011). Further study is thus required on how political actors who cope with the challenge of inconsistency, for whatever reason (transforming policy or constructing a broad consensus), explain their deviation from consistency.
Furthermore, although the Israeli case can serve as an indicative example for how politicians perceive and perform consistency, comparative research is needed for understanding the centrality and nuances of this phenomenon in both consensual democracies, majoritarian democracies, and nondemocratic political systems. Finally, this study indicates that criticisms of consistency often relate to the particular spatial context in which a message was transmitted, despite the instantaneous and global media environment. Further study is required regarding how political actors relate to the concept of the audience in the current communication environment, and why consistency over variant spaces is subject to criticism.
