Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of persuasion. No matter what the circumstances, speakers generally are trying to convince others something – whether it’s based on an opinion, the meaning of an event or experiment, their take on something fiction or non-fiction. Is anything ever completely objective? The Netflix original series, House of Cards, is a cultural artifact, which through the power of language shapes the viewers thoughts and perceptions, not only of the characters and events, but the society they actually live in.
House of Cards is a political drama developed by Beau Williams that airs solely on Netflix; it has never actually been released on television. It began in February 2013 and is currently in its third season. The show stars Kevin Spacey as Francis (Frank) Underwood, a power hungry Democrat from South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District. The show begins with him being the Majority Whip of the House of Representatives, and after the spot of Secretary of State that was promised to him was then taken away for political reasons, Frank and his wife Claire (Robin Wright) scheme their way to greater power. The show is told from Frank’s point of view – he even looks into the camera and gives small monologues throughout episodes. Frank’s ability to persuade and manipulate, and his persistence to do so, is what simply gives him power.
What I am arguing is that there is an overarching metaphor throughout the show, which is: Washington D.C, or the White House, becomes a metaphor for power, and the corruption behind it. Frank is a symbol that represents the community within the U.S. government that isn’t necessarily looking out for the good of the people, but what is good for their selfish desires. This is a very dangerous metaphor, but I would argue that it isn’t far off from the truth in many cases, unfortunately. Frank Underwood sets an example for his viewers that in order to make it in the world, one must fight in anyway possible to achieve their goals. He is ruthless, and this is seen in the very first episode when a dog is dying outside his home and he discusses two kinds of pain – the pain that makes one stronger and useless pain. He kills the dog after stating that he has no time for useless things. In order to achieve overall power, Frank allows nothing to step in his way without a fight. He often speaks in metaphors, further proving the importance of rhetoric and the power of language.
Before digging deep into the metaphor, it is necessary to understand some of the elements of the show. The main advertisement for the show is Frank Underwood sitting in Lincoln’s chair at the Lincoln Memorial with blood on his hands, along with the logo of an upside-down flag. This represents the corrupt actions Frank makes to try and create his own legacy in Washington. He literally has “blood on his hands,” which means he is responsible for deaths. The upside-down flag parallels an upside-down cross, which relates to Satan, with connotations of corruption and deceitfulness. The show is targeted to an adult audience, primarily American. It attempts to make the events that take place seem real to the viewer; one feels like an insider within Washington as Frank speaks directly to the camera. His language not only to the characters of the show, but also to his viewers, is crucial in analyzing the show’s power.
As Lakoff and Johnson argue in Metaphors We Live By, our language shapes our perception of reality, and in the culture that we live in certain metaphors make sense and if these metaphors were changed, it would change our view of society. Frank is fighting for power. He is not begging for it, he is not asking or earning it, he is a warrior in the battlefield that is Washington. What is lost and what is gained? Well, this gives a connotation that one must put a lot of effort into gaining power – it is not something that is easily attainable. It also gives motivation into winning this sort of power, which can be good or bad. A metaphor like this is what plays a part into the bigger picture. In order for Frank to win his fight, he does whatever it takes to get people who are slowing him down to get them out of the way. For example, he takes a young Congressman under his wing, seemingly to help him win his campaign. However, Frank is smarter than that. He knows this Congressman was weak and susceptible to drugs and other poor decisions, so Frank allowed him to self-destruct. When he finally broke, Frank staged his suicide. This was all an elaborate plan so Frank could gain a spot his spot as Vice- President.
Another example would be Frank has an affair with a very young journalist. She got inside information on Washington from him, and he was able to manipulate the media’s perception on the government. People were getting his dirt without knowing he was putting it out there, and she was getting recognition as a writer. Eventually she became power hungry too, and tried manipulating Frank. He did not take it lightly. When his little game was over with her, he couldn’t just let her live on with that information of his infidelity and information on Washington – so he got rid of her for good. When a friend tried to investigate and find a way to get Frank caught, Frank was already one step ahead and got him arrested for trying to gain information from the FBI. This further exemplifies the metaphor of the government having this all mighty power. When people try to fight the government and its corruption, there’s not a good chance that they will win.
How is it that a viewer still is on Frank’s side? It isn’t necessarily that you want him to commit heinous acts, but he intrigues you. The way he “trusts” you with information and attempts to give you advice, creates a sort of bond between the two. You trust him and don’t want to go against what he has created by speaking to you. You become his coconspirator, because even as Frank’s heinous acts are put directly in front of you, your desire for him to succeed does not diminish. Why is this the case? From personal experience, and others I have spoken to, you feel responsible for the actions that take place in the show. You watch, and you want to do something about it. However, you feel like you can’t and a little demon inside of you, even if you don’t admit it, enjoys Frank’s journey to absolute power. There is some hope that he is looking out for you, but there is also a fear that you don’t want to lose his trust.
This definitely relates to peoples’ distaste for the government, yet a lack of action against it. The government places fear in its people, and it is rare for many individuals to step up on every decision that they disagree with. “One person can’t make a difference.” That may be true, but people tend to forget that there is a power in numbers. I would argue that, without it being directly stated, the government prefers this. Edward Snowden didn’t keep his mouth shut about the classified NSA information that he didn’t agree with – was he protected? No, he is wanted for treason and had to go in hiding. The government places the people on their side, whether they believe it or not, just by securing a state of inaction.
The power of point of view on persuasion is overly emphasized in this show, especially because empathy is almost thrown out the window. No matter how “good” a person may be your sympathy for them does not override your desire for Frank to succeed. This is generally supported by the facts that the most successful characters are the ones who do not hold back and lack empathy/emotion. With that being said, consider of the “Chorus” roles in Greek plays. After reading Euripides’ play “Medea,” it is clear the Chorus is used to shape the viewers perceptions; they are representing “the people” or what society should think. They speak directly to the audience, and are usually a moderator; their purpose is to have the viewer “do the right thing.” Now, think of Frank Underwood as your Greek Chorus. He is shaping your reality, yes. But is he unbiased? Is he moderate, or objective? I am arguing that nothing ever is objective, and he is an extreme version of the Greek Chorus. While they may have not have bad intentions, generally, these roles were in place to push the viewer in the “right” direction, or really the direction the writer wanted the viewer to go in. So, Frank is giving you a specific viewpoint, which could be dangerous to ones’ own agency. Thus, this immense amount of pressure to think a certain way will undoubtedly cloud viewers’ minds, and blur their sense of self and their own, original standpoints.
What is gained? What is lost? Well, this metaphor relates drastically to “nice guys finish last.” In reference to Emily Martin’s The Body at War, metaphors can have a lasting effect on perception. In the case of the immune system, the media will portray a war-like situation. Within that, gender and class distinctions arise, which says a lot about the society we live in. So, what the metaphor depicted in House of Cards is saying about society is quite obvious. We are gaining an insight on Washington; that is for sure. People can relate to the manipulation of the politicians, and it further supports claims that people don’t trust the government. However, an emphasis morally good work ethic is completely lost here. Although many people will agree that going to any length to succeed is a good thing, they generally will not extend that to murder and incredible amounts of lying. “Nice guys finish last,” is a dangerous saying because it supports a claim that in order to win, you must be ruthless. Consider large corporations – the ones that are supported generously by, and whom support, the United States government. Unfortunately, top CEO’s and politicians have a history of scandal and unfair practices. So, while the grey area between corruption and power is not necessarily a safe concept, it isn’t completely false. Extremely good people can be successful too, but one could argue it is easier to get ahead in life if one is selfish and is willing to bend the rules.
After finishing the third season of House of Cards, a clearer path is drawn and we can see the direction in which the show is going. Also, the concept that the U.S. government becomes a metaphor for corruption and power may be prevalent, but it is showing evidence that it doesn’t always stand strong. Taking a look at the title itself, a house of cards is something so delicate. It can be elaborate and well designed, but one slip up will cause the whole house to crumble. Is the empire Frank is trying to build going to be as big as the Romans, and fall just as hard? Sesame Street took this concept and paralleled it with the story of The Three Little Pigs. Frank Under-wolf took down the first two houses, and once he made it to the third made of what he thought was brick, easily was able to enter the house because the pigs tricked him – it was a literal house of cards. In closing, it is important to see this connection. Yes, the world we live in may have its wrongdoers and they may beat out the good, honest worker. However, every dog has his day. In every business class one will learn that the higher the risk, the higher the reward. So sure, take chances and hope for the best… but the higher you go the harder you fall. It is important to be aware of the power that language possesses; it can enslave and it can set people free.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. 1-3. Chicago: U of Chicago,
1980. Print.
Euripides, and Rex Warner. Medea. New York: Dover Publications, 1993. Print.
Martin, Emily. “The Body at War: Media Views on the Immune System.”
Flexible Bodies. Beacon Press. 1994. Print.

“Sesame Street: House of Bricks (House of Cards Parody).” YouTube. Sesame Street
PBS, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 13 Mar. 2015.