Prior to this class, I had really never given the idea of rhetoric any thought. Frankly, I had no idea what it was. Now that I’ve been introduced to it, I’ve already noticed it being used and brought up in the media. The other night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he interviewed the former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty. (The interview can be seen here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-12-2011/exclusive---tim-pawlenty-extended-interview) Jon Stewart asked Tim Pawlenty whether the rhetoric used to describe the Obama administration actually represents true beliefs held by republicans, or whether it is just a tactic used to create fear and gain votes. He brought up a very good point that the Bush administration created new national mandates such as “No Child Left Behind,” and there was not much outrage, yet the Obama administration creates a health care bill, and people accuse it as being tyrannical. The republicans even named a new bill the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.”
The two administrations are generally very similar to each other, yet the rhetoric used to describe Obama and his actions are far more harsh and serious than that which were used to describe Bush. Because the realities are so similar but the rhetoric used are so different, the rhetoric must be playing some other role than just discussing the topics. Maybe people are scared about the state of our economy right now and are therefore reacting more strongly to changes. Maybe politicians and people in the media know that people are worried, and are creating more reasons to worry for the sake of gaining votes. Maybe people actually feel more strongly about the actions of the Obama administration. If so, why would that be the case? Are politicians trying to scare people into voting for them, or is it something else entirely?
I find it interesting how there is certain double-standard regarding Presidential administrations. Since I'm not particularly familiar with politics, I find it odd how the Obama administration has come under fire, while the Bush administration, an administration that was reviled by a good majority of the population of America, has not. This could be due to the fact that the administration in power will always have detractors regardless of what they actually accomplish.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the difference lies in the different audiences of both parties (Democrats and Republicans). The Republicans (being conservative in terms of US politics) tend to pander to a more reactionary audience for which fostering anger is effective. Democrats are usually (but not always) more passive in their approach.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like they are trying to push their beliefs a little too much. Using the term "Job-Killing" in the bill's title, I think is a little unnecessary. A title for an act shouldn't be created by that party's harsh opinions, but rather a summary on what the new bill will be about without the extra insult. Imagine if other acts had titles with crass opinions? For all we know the Civil Rights Act might of been named "After Years of Injustice, I Guess We'll Give Them What They Want Act".
ReplyDelete