Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The Philosophy of Rhetoric

If we rightfully discredit our President for basing policies on intangible and emotional ideals such as terror.... should we look upon a candidate who bases their campaign on different intangible and emotional ideals, however appealing they may be?

1 comment:

  1. While I think that I understand your message, I feel that you have left yourself open to a wide range of interpretations. Just as your film clip demonstrates, a broad spectrum of human emotions exists and each of us brings our own experience to each judgement that we make. Obama's "intangibles" are designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of electorate. While promising change and playing to bland emotional ideals, he has successfully appealed to that broad spectrum of voters without saying too much. If the electorate does not demand more of a stand and he garners the results that he has, why should he do anything different? The ownership of Obama's success lies with the American public and their position of "Don't tell me too much. Don't make me think too hard. Just tell me that things will be better." So the true strength to Obama is just a brilliantly run campaign. If he were a consumable product, such as a new shampoo looking for new consumers, Madison Avenue couldn't have done a better job. Consumers want to feel better and if a product offers that, they will buy. I doubt that his campaign differs from many previous winning presidents.
    Know your audience.
    Or is this blog entry just a racist attempt at discrediting a man that many Americans have embraced? Or are you an Atheist who is pushing your lack of a belief system on the reader? Perhaps you have mother issues and backing Hillary fills some psychological need in your damaged psyche. I could go on and on because you have left yourself open to a wide range of interpretations.
    If Obama wins, the ownership lies with the people who put him in office. Wait, isn't that how our system works?