The epistrophe is a rhetorical figure as old as it is effective, which Aristotle already used, but which surely had its most determined defender in Barack Obama. The epistrophe consists of repeating a phrase throughout a speech, at the end of each paragraph. If it is placed at the beginning, then it is called anaphora. In both cases, the speaker tries to insist on an idea several times so that it is remembered, while at the same time helping to give structure and rhythm to the parliament. Those who come to listen to their politicians at public events are usually unable to remember them, but with these linguistic figures it is intended that they retain at least a fraction of the text.
In her speech at the PP protest demonstration against an amnesty for those prosecuted for the process, Isabel Díaz Ayuso underlined her criticism with the phrase “in no way.” It is a sentence that leaves no room: neither for the parties that support the investiture of Pedro Sánchez, nor for that sector of the popular ones who would have spoken with the Junts leadership to see if there was any loophole to negotiate four votes for Alberto Núñez Feijóo.
The president of Madrid read her speech, without giving herself room for the improvisation that she likes so much and that gives her such good results. But she had been warned that she could not go off script, lest she become the star of the day and steal Feijóo’s shot and applause.
The idea of ??the epistrophe comes from Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, his skillful advisor who once helped bring José María Aznar to Moncloa with the rhetoric of “go away, Mr. González.” The epistrophe is in fashion. Or do we not remember Yolanda Díaz repeating during the debate on labor reform that “it’s not smoke, it’s people.” Not to mention Jordi Cuixart’s “ho tornarem a fer” in one of his first public interventions after leaving prison.
In any case, it’s bad when things have to be hammered many times, because it seems like we don’t believe them. Maybe the spin doctors have read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where he warns that “sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions create a truth.” As if the truth did not exist when we name it just once.
