Is It Tradition or Manipulation? Understanding the "Historical Precedent" Technique
Why we lean on the past to justify the present—and how to tell when it’s being used against you.
The Authority of the Inevitable: Unpacking "Historical Precedents"
Language is rarely just a medium for facts; it is a tool for framing reality. Among the most potent tools in the rhetorical shed is the use of Historical Precedents—specifically the linguistic habit of pointing to a current event and declaring, "This is how [System X] works." Whether the subject is democracy, the free market, or justice, this technique functions by anchoring a specific, often controversial moment to a grand, timeless tradition.
By invoking a historical precedent, a speaker shifts the conversation from what is happening to what must happen. It is a psychological bypass: instead of debating the merits of an action, the listener is invited to accept it as an inherent feature of a larger, functional machine. It transforms a choice into a mechanical necessity.
The Genesis: From Common Law to the "Great Tradition"
The reliance on precedent isn't just a rhetorical flourish; it is baked into the DNA of Western governance. Its formal origins lie in the English Common Law system, established in the centuries following the Norman Conquest. The principle of stare decisis—to stand by things decided—dictated that past judicial decisions were the primary authority for current cases.
However, the leap from legal doctrine to a general linguistic technique occurred during the Enlightenment. Figures like Edmund Burke, often considered the father of modern conservatism, weaponized the idea of precedent. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), Burke argued that political change shouldn't be based on abstract "rights," but on the "entailed inheritance" of past generations.
To Burke and his contemporaries, saying "this is how society works" was a way to ground volatile human emotions in the perceived wisdom of ancestors. It was an intellectual safety rail designed to prevent the "mob" from reinventing the world from scratch—a response to the terrifying tabula rasa of the French Revolution.
Evolution and the Rise of Institutionalism
As the 19th and 20th centuries progressed, the technique evolved from a defense of the aristocracy into a tool for Institutionalism. With the rise of mass literacy and the centralized nation-state, leaders needed a way to build consensus among diverse populations.
The technique gained staying power through:
Educational Standardization: History textbooks began to frame national progress as a linear, inevitable chain of events.
The Cold War: Both American and Soviet rhetoric heavily used "historical necessity" to justify domestic crackdowns or foreign interventions. If a government suppressed dissent, it was framed not as a choice, but as "how a revolutionary state protects itself" or "how a democracy defends its values."
In the mid-20th century, the tone shifted from Burke’s "reverence for the past" to a more technocratic "logic of the system." The phrase became less about honoring ancestors and more about describing a machine. When a politician today says, "This is how the legislative process works," they are often using the weight of history to excuse gridlock, compromise, or slow-moving reform.
Modern Application: The Rhetoric of Normalization
In today’s hyper-connected media landscape, the "Historical Precedent" technique is a primary weapon in the battle for normalization.
We see this most clearly in the aftermath of political scandals or institutional failures. When a leader bypasses a norm, supporters might point to an obscure 19th-century event to say, "This is how the executive branch has always functioned." Conversely, when a system fails to deliver a desired outcome, critics might say, "This is how a rigged system works."
The Power to Persuade vs. The Power to Manipulate
The modern impact of this technique is dual-edged:
Stability: It can provide a sense of calm during a crisis. By framing a chaotic event as part of a historical cycle, leaders can prevent panic.
Gaslighting: It can be used to silence legitimate grievances. If someone complains about a systemic injustice, responding with "this is just how the world works" effectively shuts down the possibility of change. It suggests that the victim's pain is merely a byproduct of a natural law, rather than a result of human agency.
Mastery and Discernment: How to Respond
The "Historical Precedent" technique is neither inherently good nor evil; it is a lens. To use it thoughtfully—and to avoid being misled by it—one must practice Rhetorical Literacy.
1. Question the Parallel
When you hear someone say, "This is how X works," ask yourself: Is the comparison accurate? Often, the "precedent" being cited is a cherry-picked anomaly rather than a consistent pattern.
2. Distinguish Between "Is" and "Ought"
Just because something has a history doesn't mean it has a future. Logic dictates that the way a system has worked is not a binding contract for how it must work. When someone invokes history, they are often trying to turn a "description" into a "prescription."
3. Use it for Empowerment
In your own communication, you can use historical precedents to provide context and courage. If you are leading a team through a difficult transition, pointing to past successes in similar situations can build confidence. The key is to use history as a bridge to the future, rather than a shackle to the past.
By recognizing the phrase "this is how it works" for what it is—a rhetorical frame—you reclaim your power to ask, "But is this how it should work?" Language then stops being a cage and starts being a conversation.
Keep Going!
Check out these related posts
