What is the name of the tactic that politicians use to bury people with torrent of words?
Solution 1:
Consider bloviate
Talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way
It has an interesting derivation and pattern of usage, especially (but not exclusively) as applied to politicians.
Solution 2:
Filibuster is the act of speaking non-stop in Congress or other parliamentary body. It is used as a tactic to hold the floor for various reasons: To allow time to gather constituents, to prevent discussion or vote on a bill before it will expire, to obstruct proceedings in general.
The word derives from Spanish filibustero which is in turn derived from Dutch vrijbuiter meaning pirate or privateer. The sense is that the filibusterer is stealing the time.
Otherwise, there is another notion that derives from a quote by W.C. Fields:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Solution 3:
This may not be exactly what you are thinking of, but there is a technique informally known as the "Gish Gallop", which specifically refers to rapidly presenting many arguments. Although each individual argument may be flawed, each one take time to refute (often longer than it took to state), and thus an opponent may simply not have enough time to deal with them all.
Solution 4:
Any of these:
- waffling
- bullshitting
- beating about the bush
- avoiding the issue
- bloviating
- pontificating
- posturing
- snowing
- fogging (if the intent is to distract from the underlying issue)
- talking in circles
Solution 5:
I'm really not sure what you're asking - you seem to be referring to three distinct circumstances:
1) The deliberate use of prolixity in a parliamentary context. In the UK, this is known as 'talking out' a bill. It's not equivalent to the US practice of filibustering, which seeks to extend, rather than curtail discussion. Both, however, have the same intent: to avoid a vote being taken, and the bill dismissed or passed.
2) The deliberate use of language for persuasive purposes to 'hook' people's interest and perhaps also get them to commit to taking action of some kind. This essentially falls under the heading of Deliberative Rhetoric. Hooks will typically include the traditional rhetorical categories of ethos, pathos and logos - appeals to and from character, emotion and reason.
3) A formal, florid, free-flowing academic style. You referenced Noam Chomsky - I could personally listen to him talk for hours and not be bored or put off. You also referenced Jared Diamond - again, his writing seems clear and informative - I'm not sure what you're trying to describe in terms of style with reference to either of these speakers/writers. I certainly can't see the connection between their output and the circumstances described in 1 and 2.