http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html
In his Op-Ed piece titled "The Next Culture War," David Brooks calls the culture war waged by religous conservatives "obsolete" and insists that now is the time for people on the right and left alike to be focusing on the economy. "Our current cultural politics are organized by the obsolete culture war, which has put secular liberals on one side and religious conservatives on the other. But the slide in economic morality afflicted Red and Blue America equally," he states. He explains that, although our economy emerged resilient from the boom-bust cycles in the past, our ability to cope with economic difficulty has weakened. Brooks blames this trend on the fact that people no longer exercise self-restraint, and have replaced it with extreme self-indulgence. Appealing to the moral concept of values, Brooks uses the phrase "economic values" to refer to the standards by which Americans ought to be spending their money. One particular evil that he mentions is the way that government funded gambling targets the poor and only increases their suffering. Through this example and others, Brooks is appealing to an audience with a strong sense of social justice and moral values alike, in an attempt to motivate them towards action.
Placing Brooks' article in terms of Weaver's chapter, "indulgence" has become a "devil term" while "personal restraint" is now a "god term." Although Brooks does not state this explicitly, he implies that the indulgence of the 1990s and early 2000s has become a shameful part of our country's economic past. He insists that if we do not make changes in the direction of personal restraint, regardless of our political affiliations, then our nation is headed towards permanent decline: "A crusade for economic self-restraint would have to rearrange the current alliances and embrace policies like energy taxes and spending cuts that are now deemed politically impossible." Armed with overtly religious terms such as "values," "crusade," and "self-restraint," Brooks makes a strong rhetorical appeal to people who adhere to old-fashioned values and believe that returning to old traditions of self-restraint will save our country's economic future.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Emotional Appeal: "Working Class Zero" by Timothy Egan
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/working-class-zero/
In his NYT opinion article "Working Class Zero," Timothy Egan reflects on the results of the economic policies of the past decade. In lieu of the recent tea party demonstrations and Washington protests, Egan asks, "Where was the Tea Party movement when the tax burden was shifted from the high end to the middle?" in reference to the changes in income tax that occured during the Bush administration. He also asks, "Where were the angry “stiffs” when the banking industry rolled the 2005 Congress into rewriting bankruptcy law, making it easier to keep people in permanent credit card hock?" Egan is pointing out that the recession did not appear out of thin air; that certain policies led to the situation we are now faced with. He also provides a catchy quote from John Lennon: "A working class hero is something to be, keep you doped with religion and sex and T.V." Through his appeal to Lennon's poetic words, Egan
is exposing the political manipulation that working class people have submitted themselves to in the past decade. When people feel manipulated and used, it makes them feel angry. Egan is using what Augustine calls "the subdued style," of which he says, "It does not come forth armed or adorned but, as it were, nude, and in this way crushes the sinews and muscles of its adversary and overcomes and destroys resisting falsehood with its most powerful members" (163). The plainspokenness of Egan's article is what makes it the most appealing: he is just one of us, as he qualifies his Lennon quote by stating, "As someone who had a union card in my wallet before I owned a Mastercard, I don’t share Lennon’s dark view of blue collar workers." Egan is implying that, although he appears to be an intellectual because he is writing for the NYT, he has blue collar background and is thus can identify with working class people. Through this identification, Egan establishes his integrity as an author who genuinely cares about the political and economic position of his audience.
Egan is not overtly trying to persuade his audience towards action, and he does not explicitly call for a certain emotional reaction until the end of his article when he states, "Older southern whites — that’s who got hit hardest by the freewheeling decade now fading. They should be angry. But they’re five years too late." This sounds like more of a reproach than a call for action, but the piling up of historical facts from the economic policies of the Bush administration has already provoked the audience to anger before they reach the concluding paragraph.
In his NYT opinion article "Working Class Zero," Timothy Egan reflects on the results of the economic policies of the past decade. In lieu of the recent tea party demonstrations and Washington protests, Egan asks, "Where was the Tea Party movement when the tax burden was shifted from the high end to the middle?" in reference to the changes in income tax that occured during the Bush administration. He also asks, "Where were the angry “stiffs” when the banking industry rolled the 2005 Congress into rewriting bankruptcy law, making it easier to keep people in permanent credit card hock?" Egan is pointing out that the recession did not appear out of thin air; that certain policies led to the situation we are now faced with. He also provides a catchy quote from John Lennon: "A working class hero is something to be, keep you doped with religion and sex and T.V." Through his appeal to Lennon's poetic words, Egan
is exposing the political manipulation that working class people have submitted themselves to in the past decade. When people feel manipulated and used, it makes them feel angry. Egan is using what Augustine calls "the subdued style," of which he says, "It does not come forth armed or adorned but, as it were, nude, and in this way crushes the sinews and muscles of its adversary and overcomes and destroys resisting falsehood with its most powerful members" (163). The plainspokenness of Egan's article is what makes it the most appealing: he is just one of us, as he qualifies his Lennon quote by stating, "As someone who had a union card in my wallet before I owned a Mastercard, I don’t share Lennon’s dark view of blue collar workers." Egan is implying that, although he appears to be an intellectual because he is writing for the NYT, he has blue collar background and is thus can identify with working class people. Through this identification, Egan establishes his integrity as an author who genuinely cares about the political and economic position of his audience.
Egan is not overtly trying to persuade his audience towards action, and he does not explicitly call for a certain emotional reaction until the end of his article when he states, "Older southern whites — that’s who got hit hardest by the freewheeling decade now fading. They should be angry. But they’re five years too late." This sounds like more of a reproach than a call for action, but the piling up of historical facts from the economic policies of the Bush administration has already provoked the audience to anger before they reach the concluding paragraph.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Emotional Appeal: "A World of Hurt" by Bob Herbert
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/opinion/15herbert.html
In his NYT Op-ed piece "A World of Hurt," columnist Bob Herbert creates an emotional appeal to people who have suffered from the effects of the past two years of our country's recession. He concedes that the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve Committee have taken action to alleviate our economic distress, but that the end of our problems is not yet in sight. "This recession, a full-blown economic horror, has left a gaping hole in the heart of working America that is unlikely to heal for years, if not decades," he states. Herbert is recognizing the suffering that people have experienced through the recession, and he is creating an emotional appeal that resounds with working class people who have suffered most significantly.
Herbert effectively appeals to his audience like a preacher to a congregation: "We’re hurtin’ and there ain’t much healin’ on the horizon." In other words, people are suffering and they want that suffering to be acknowledged, not swept under the rug by false assurances of a recovery. He states, "It’s eerie to me how little attention this crisis is receiving. The poor seem to be completely out of the picture." Herbert implies the facts without stating them: most of the bailout money went to large corporations and banks that were failing, and it did nothing to help the unemployed. The financial and auto industry may be recovering, but individuals are not: "Unemployment benefits for many are running out. Families are doubling up, and the number of homeless children is rising." Herbert's emotional appeal resonates with people who are jobless and facing a financial crisis that affects their ability to survive, not just to be successful. This is a frightening prospect for families and individuals, and they feel helpless at the hands of a system that has not benefitted them.
Concerning the emotion of fear in terms of power and authority, Aristotle says that, "And since most men tend to be bad- slaves to greed, and cowards in danger- it is, as a rule, a terrible thing to be at another man's mercy; and therefore, if we have done anything horrible, those in the secret terrify us with the thought that they may betray or desert us" (70). Herbert is not too focused on making logical arguments, not because the logical appeal is not there, but because an emotional appeal is more effective for those who are suffering. People are already past being afraid of losing their jobs; they have already lost them. Working people have already made up their mind who is to blame for the recession; they don't want facts and figures, they want recognition of their suffering. Herbert is also effective in creating a sense of guilt in the reader who may be better off financially than those who are truly suffering. This sense of guilt motivates people with any sort of conscience towards action to help others in need. In conclusion, the combination of identification and reproach is what makes Herbert's argument so effective.
In his NYT Op-ed piece "A World of Hurt," columnist Bob Herbert creates an emotional appeal to people who have suffered from the effects of the past two years of our country's recession. He concedes that the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve Committee have taken action to alleviate our economic distress, but that the end of our problems is not yet in sight. "This recession, a full-blown economic horror, has left a gaping hole in the heart of working America that is unlikely to heal for years, if not decades," he states. Herbert is recognizing the suffering that people have experienced through the recession, and he is creating an emotional appeal that resounds with working class people who have suffered most significantly.
Herbert effectively appeals to his audience like a preacher to a congregation: "We’re hurtin’ and there ain’t much healin’ on the horizon." In other words, people are suffering and they want that suffering to be acknowledged, not swept under the rug by false assurances of a recovery. He states, "It’s eerie to me how little attention this crisis is receiving. The poor seem to be completely out of the picture." Herbert implies the facts without stating them: most of the bailout money went to large corporations and banks that were failing, and it did nothing to help the unemployed. The financial and auto industry may be recovering, but individuals are not: "Unemployment benefits for many are running out. Families are doubling up, and the number of homeless children is rising." Herbert's emotional appeal resonates with people who are jobless and facing a financial crisis that affects their ability to survive, not just to be successful. This is a frightening prospect for families and individuals, and they feel helpless at the hands of a system that has not benefitted them.
Concerning the emotion of fear in terms of power and authority, Aristotle says that, "And since most men tend to be bad- slaves to greed, and cowards in danger- it is, as a rule, a terrible thing to be at another man's mercy; and therefore, if we have done anything horrible, those in the secret terrify us with the thought that they may betray or desert us" (70). Herbert is not too focused on making logical arguments, not because the logical appeal is not there, but because an emotional appeal is more effective for those who are suffering. People are already past being afraid of losing their jobs; they have already lost them. Working people have already made up their mind who is to blame for the recession; they don't want facts and figures, they want recognition of their suffering. Herbert is also effective in creating a sense of guilt in the reader who may be better off financially than those who are truly suffering. This sense of guilt motivates people with any sort of conscience towards action to help others in need. In conclusion, the combination of identification and reproach is what makes Herbert's argument so effective.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Analysis: "Intellectual Property and the Right to Private Property"
Tibor R. Machan's abstract concerning the debate on intellectual property can be found by following this link: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/machan11.pdf. The basic argument of Machan's essay is that property can be defined by the presence of human intention, such as that which you will find in a sonnet or a novel. Machan questions the assumed idea that things owned as private property must be tangible, such as a car or a piece of land. This is problematic when a person who labors to create something, or to form a new idea, expects to profit from the value of what they have produced. In fact, Machan will argue that things such as characters and ideas in a novel or play may not be "tangible" in the way that a rock or a tree is tangible, but they are tangible to our senses, or to the ability of our imagination to use our senses.
Machan traces the roots of the argument against intellectual property back to the old Platonic metaphysical idea of ontological dualism, which (to paraphrase) maintains that reality presents itself to humans as either spiritual or material. Yet does the existence of something in the mind or in the imagination make it intangible? Machan would argue that it does not. He also states that there is differentiation on a continuum when it comes to the tangible or intangible scale, providing a more realistic answer to the old Platonic dualism. The fact that a thing is perceptible through our minds alone is what makes something tangible. He also mentions that the right to private property is linked to "human intention" within the classical liberal tradition, through thinkers such as William of Ockham, John Locke, and Ayn Rand (3). Finally, he concludes that it is the human action of intention that truly defines "how private property is acquired"(4). Sidestepping the public policy issue, Machan dissects the philosophical side of the debate to make his argument for intellectual property. He ends with the statement, "The central issue is, instead, whether when someone produces or creates a work-- poem, novel, song, arrangement, computer program, game, or the like (excluding all discoveries)-- he or she may deprived of these without permission? I think not" (4).
Due to the fact that Machan ends with his strongest statement, it is difficult to determine where his argument is headed at the beginning of the essay. It is written more like a political blog than an actual scholarly essay. However, the arguments are practical when it comes to combatting the philosophical foundation of those who would say that authors should have no right to their works. I was disappointed in the lack of organization of his ideas, as he does not say from the beginning what his position is and how he will be arguing it. He jumps from modern examples of intellectual property to Platonic dualism to classical liberalism with minimal or no transitions. I think that the intention of the article was not to convince people of his writing skills, but to make a philosophical statement in favor of intellectual property, while sidestepping the actual policy debate. While he was successful in making a few good points and asking questions that showed the contradictions of the opposite side, he could have expounded his points more thoroughly and applied them to the policy debate.
Machan traces the roots of the argument against intellectual property back to the old Platonic metaphysical idea of ontological dualism, which (to paraphrase) maintains that reality presents itself to humans as either spiritual or material. Yet does the existence of something in the mind or in the imagination make it intangible? Machan would argue that it does not. He also states that there is differentiation on a continuum when it comes to the tangible or intangible scale, providing a more realistic answer to the old Platonic dualism. The fact that a thing is perceptible through our minds alone is what makes something tangible. He also mentions that the right to private property is linked to "human intention" within the classical liberal tradition, through thinkers such as William of Ockham, John Locke, and Ayn Rand (3). Finally, he concludes that it is the human action of intention that truly defines "how private property is acquired"(4). Sidestepping the public policy issue, Machan dissects the philosophical side of the debate to make his argument for intellectual property. He ends with the statement, "The central issue is, instead, whether when someone produces or creates a work-- poem, novel, song, arrangement, computer program, game, or the like (excluding all discoveries)-- he or she may deprived of these without permission? I think not" (4).
Due to the fact that Machan ends with his strongest statement, it is difficult to determine where his argument is headed at the beginning of the essay. It is written more like a political blog than an actual scholarly essay. However, the arguments are practical when it comes to combatting the philosophical foundation of those who would say that authors should have no right to their works. I was disappointed in the lack of organization of his ideas, as he does not say from the beginning what his position is and how he will be arguing it. He jumps from modern examples of intellectual property to Platonic dualism to classical liberalism with minimal or no transitions. I think that the intention of the article was not to convince people of his writing skills, but to make a philosophical statement in favor of intellectual property, while sidestepping the actual policy debate. While he was successful in making a few good points and asking questions that showed the contradictions of the opposite side, he could have expounded his points more thoroughly and applied them to the policy debate.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Rhetoric and the Intellectual Property Debate
In the first chapter of his lessons on Rhetoric, Aristotle explains the importance of emotional appeals within any argument. He says that, while a more sophisticated audience may accept appeals to logic alone, the masses require an emotional appeal before they will accept an argument. He says, "For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct" (Rhetoric 5). When it comes to public debates, such as the intellectual property debate, it is possible to be emotionally supportive of one side and totally ignorant of the actual facts concerning the issue. For instance, I am currently a supporter of some intellectual property rights because, as an aspiring author, I have a personal interest in copyright laws that protect my work and will potentially allow me to earn a living. However, if I find through a closer examination of the debate that my personal interest is false, and that in fact copyright laws will inhibit my potential to earn a living as an author, it will more than likely cause me to change my position. This, in and of itself, will be an interesting political psychology question concerning why people change their minds about issues, and I plan to discuss that as I dissect the various arguments. To answer the psychological questions, I will draw from Westen's book The Political Brain. Using both Aristotle and Westen, I will be examining the rhetorical strategies of those who are both for and against intellectual property laws, including their appeals to logic and emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)