|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Join the Disney Movie Club and get 3 FREE MOVIES! August 1, 2004 What is the Deal with Political Rhetoric? By Jan A. Larson One definition of the word rhetoric is, "Skill in using language effectively and persuasively." But second definition describes rhetoric as, "Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous." [1] Many in the world of politics believe (or at least they think their audience believes) that their rambling monologues are best described the first definition of rhetoric, but far, far too often, the words spoken by those in Washington and those that aspire to Washington are most accurately characterized by the second. It seems that the more time a politician spends in Washington, the less likely that their speech will reflect the use of language persuasively and the more likely it will be elaborate, pretentious and intellectually vacuous. Ted Kennedy's comments on almost any subject, for example. Of course, it isn't difficult for sound-minded, logically thinking people to tell the difference between persuasive and pretentious speech. However, the votes of those that can't discern the difference count just the same and that explains why we hear so much intellectually vacuous rhetoric in an election year. Those in the Kerry campaign, along with others on the left, took the cake when it came to intellectually empty speech with their repeated assertions that the President "lied" to the American public about the reasons to go to war in Iraq. Although it has become quite clear that the President did not lie to the American public about Iraq's WMDs (poor or insufficient intelligence notwithstanding) or Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Niger, it is unlikely that any apologies will be forthcoming. Kerry has railed about the President's performance for months on every subject from Iraq to the economy to you name it. Despite evidence that the current economic policy and the already enacted tax cuts are working to stimulate the economy, the rhetoric from Kerry/Edwards suggests that our economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Does anyone actually believe this? Vice-presidential candidate, John Edwards, has engaged in campaign rhetoric suggesting that there are "two Americas," the one for those of wealth and privilege (like him) and one for the rest of us downtrodden schmucks. Edwards made his millions representing the "downtrodden" in lawsuits that have contributed to the ever-increasing cost of healthcare. Now Kerry and Edwards want the uniformed electorate to believe that they can provide healthcare for everyone and lower the price paid at the same time. While there are ways that the costs of delivering healthcare in the United States can be reduced, such sweeping promises are intellectually dishonest. More intellectual dishonesty was heard earlier in the campaign when Kerry blasted the President for not having a "plan" for Iraq. Kerry either did not or does not understand that the war in Iraq is much more like a chess game than a movie script. The "not having a plan" rhetoric has subsided in recent weeks after the President's plan to return sovereignty to Iraq was completed. Kerry's rhetoric isn't limited to current events. There has been, and continues to be, a lot said about Kerry's service in Viet Nam and President Bush's service in the National Guard. Kerry has been riding the Viet Nam horse throughout the campaign while questioning the President's military record. To their "credit," Republicans have been quick to jump on the rhetoric bandwagon in denouncing Kerry's anti-war activities. In my view, these events, from 30+ years ago, have little relevance today. The political rhetoric will only heat up in the remaining three months leading up to the election. With every event in Iraq, every up or down of economic indicators or revelation of some item from either candidate's past, partisans will spew forth bombast and hyperbole attempting to sway voters. It is my hope that the voters will be able to discern the persuasive speech from intellectually vacuous. Is that too much to ask? -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
