Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Tea Party politics this week - is the GOP (finally) taking back their party?
What's interesting about this emerging shift is that this is where we first began investigating the Tea Party 5 years ago: wanting to know where the GOP ends and the Tea Party begins. For a long time, there was little difference, since the "devil" of the Tea Party (Barack Obama) was the target of GOP campaigning, too.
But now (theoretically) that we are moving to midterms and a new Presidential election cycle, the "devil" is no longer running, so the Tea Party is losing influence and the GOP seems to be taking back the party from them, perhaps realizing they have no identity once Obama is gone.
They will need something positive to be for because what they were against is no longer an issue. (or they will need a new anti-thetical trope, but I doubt anything will ever match the fanatical opposition to Obama).
GOP mainstream politicians such as Jeb Bush began this shift years ago (see his 2013 keynote to CPAC). In that speech, he never mentioned Barack Obama, but instead spoke of what the Republican party stands FOR, not what they stand against. He noted "we have to stop being against everything."
In essence, the Tea Party needs a new anti-thesis and devil to survive rhetorically. So far the new antithesis seems to be "Benghazi" which is an anti-Hillary (+ Obama) trope. But Hillary rhetorically turned that back on them in her book recently, accusing them of playing politics "on the backs of dead Americans", which I think significantly weakens for a future anti-thesis.
Not surprising, however, Tea Party leaders such as Sarah Palin and legislators like Ted Cruz are still fixated on Obama and "Obamacare" as a primary problem in the U.S. and still calling for repeal; others such as Rand Paul are slowly backing away from that position.
Dave Weigel - Slate
The Tea Party vs. the Establishment, in Two Newspaper Front Pages
David Freelander - The Daily Beast
Conservative Senator Kicks Tea Party to the Curb
Stephanie Grace - The Advocate
The GOP keeping the Tea Party at bay.
Jonathan Martin - The New York Times
On Win Streak, Mainline G.O.P. Takes Tougher Stance Toward Tea Party
Jake Sherman - Politico
John Boehner’s friends plot tea party crackdown
Dan Balz - Washington Post
At Republican Leadership Conference, the struggle over the GOP’s future continues
Sean Sullivan - Washington Post
The tea party and GOP establishment are happily married in the Iowa Senate race
David Montgomery - The New York Times
Slowed Elsewhere, Tea Party Still Wields Considerable Sway in Texas Races
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
More of this, please!
As I said earlier this week, what needs to happen rhetorically is for the GOP to start casting the Tea Party as the bad guys and the GOP and traditional Conservatives as the good guys. As President Obama said October 1st, the Tea Party is "one faction of one party in one house". The political right needs to run with that . . . and that appears to be finally beginning.
Here is Scott Galupo from The American Conservative today:
Why are Republicans inflicting real, immediate, and tangible harm on the economy in order to accomplish the impossible (delay or defund Obamacare) address an abstract future threat (debt) or merely to save face? Why isn’t the majority of the House majority isolating its rightmost faction and ending this pointlessly asinine pissing match?
Contra the conventional wisdom, I maintain that no one in leadership will lose his job. The very nature of Tea Party opposition, whether it issues from the likes ofBazooka Ted and His Gang in the Senate or the unappeasable Jacobins in the House, is to throw weight without consequence. They evince no interest in actually wielding power from the inside, which would require restraint, conciliation, and moderation. They are hysterics on the brink of utter demoralization. The danger they pose to democratic norms, institutional comity, and political functionality is precisely why they can’t be bargained with; they must be marginalized.
It’s time, Republicans: it’s time to throw the One Ring into Mount Doom. (emphasis mine)
Word. More of this, please!!
"Insane, Catastrophic, Chaos"
From the Washington Post:
President Obama addressed the nation Tuesday regarding the government shutdown, telling Congress to take a vote on a continuing resolution to end the government shutdown. Video and transcript are available here.
Specific comments about the Tea Party from President Obama's press conference today:
Now the last time that the tea party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, America's credit rating was downgraded for the first time, and a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many CEOs and economists, would be -- and I'm quoting here -- "insane, catastrophic, chaos" -- these are some of the more polite words.…
And I've continued to believe that Citizens United contributed to some of the problems we're having in Washington right now. You know, you have some ideological extremist who has a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics.
And there are a whole bunch of members of Congress right now who privately will tell you, I know our positions are unreasonable, but we're scared that if we don't go along with the tea party agenda, or the -- some particularly extremist agenda, that we'll be challenged from the right. And the threats are very explicit. And so they toe the line. And that's part of why we've seen a breakdown of just normal routine business done here in Washington on behalf of the American people.And all of you know it. I mean, I'm not telling you anything you don't know because it's very explicit. You report on it. A big chunk of the Republican Party right now is -- are in gerrymandered districts where there's no competition and those folks are much more worried about a tea party challenger than they are about a general election where they've got to complete against a Democrat or go after independent votes. And in that environment, it's a lot harder for them to compromise. All right?
Transcript of President's remarks is available via the Washington Post.
“The Tea Party is better understood as a reactionary conservative force.”
“The Tea Party is better understood as a reactionary conservative force.”
University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, a co-author of Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America:
University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, a co-author of Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America:
"In our survey research, a list experiment also revealed how Tea Party conservatives think differently than other conservatives. We randomly divided survey respondents into two groups and asked them how many of a list of statements — but not which statements — they agreed with. The only thing that differed across the two groups was whether the list of statements included the proposition that “Obama is destroying the country.” The results showed a striking divergence: 71 percent of Tea-Party conservatives agreed with this statement but six percent of non-Tea Party conservatives did." (Emphasis mine)
"We also explored the roots of identification with the Tea Party. We found that, even after controlling a host of factors — including ideology and attitudes toward African-Americans — Tea Party identifiers were more common among those believing that Obama actively promotes socialism. This again suggests motives more akin to reactionary conservatism."Once again, we see the identification against a devil (Obama) as the primary basis of Tea Party membership and movement. Parker calls them "reactionary". We call them fanatical. I'm going to tentatively suggest that being fanatical and being reactionary are not exactly the same. In a fanactical group there is a specific rhetorical devil. This is not necessarily the case in a reactionary movement. Fanatical movements are motivated by fear - not necessarily so a reactionary m0vement. This is a tentative conclusion - I'm still thinking about it...
Saturday, October 5, 2013
USA Today - "The Tea Party shutdown"
From the October 2nd USA Today editorial clarifying that the government shutdown is not the result of both parties in Congress behaving badly; rather the shutdown is entirely attributable to the Tea Party "fringe". The editorial board notes:
This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.
Call it the Tea Party shutdown. The group will wear the badge proudly.
Pressed by this uncompromising fringe, Republicans leaders in the House are making demands that are both preposterous and largely unrelated to budgetary matters in return for keeping government running. Most absurdly, they want President Obama to undermine the health care law that he ran on in 2008 and 2012, and now considers his signature domestic accomplishment.
No president of either party could accept that kind of badgering. No president should. (Emphasis mine).
More fanatical (as opposed to useful or practical) Tea Party opposition to the symbolic Obama devil - in this case "Obamacare". And USA Today also points out that this is coming from the "disaffected base" of the party - which is a primary component of a fanatical movement (the disaffected audience) according to Eric Hoffer.
A reporter for MSNBC (find name) similarly noted last week that those in opposition are "True Believers" who really do believe Obamacare is dangerous - it is not merely a political strategy to oppose the Democrats.
Which is even scarier - because as Hoffer so clearly outlines, fanatical movements cannot be persuaded by reason and logic because they are not concerned about the rational basis of a policy position. There can be no compromise for them because they are on a "holy quest" that is more important than any practical policy concern. True Believers will sacrifice anything for their Holy Cause and for the Tea Party this is opposing "the devil" Obama and all of his works (e.g. Obamacare).
So in this case, what gets sacrificed to the "holy cause" that Hoffer explains is the American budget and the entire functioning of the government. Nevermind how much this hurts workers and citizens who are furloughed or denied access to federal landmarks because of the shutdown. The Tea Party doesn't care: we are just collateral damage in their holy quest to oppose their devil (i.e. Obama).
My 2 cents:
If Speaker Boehner is waiting for this disaffected base to come around and support a straight vote on the budget, it will never happen. He'll have to take a stand and split the party into two distinguishable components: The GOP (who cares about America and Americans) and The Tea Party (who care about nothing but their fanatical quest to oppose President Obama). Perhaps faced with the choice of being part of the un-American Tea Party or part of an American GOP, there could be a shift for some into the "American" brotherhood.
Symbolically, rhetorically, that is the only solution to the fanatical Tea Party problem in the GOP and Congress.
Don't hold your breath. Everytime Boehner has had a chance to jettison the Tea Party and elevate the GOP he has balked. I can't help but wonder - what are they holding over his head that he is so paralyzed by their influence? Is remaining Speaker of the House so important that he will collude and empower the fringe in order to assure his position - thus refusing to become part of the solution (the American GOP) and joining the problem (the anti-American Tea party). Is he really that weak?
How does he not get that Americans love a hero more than they love House Speakers? Directing his party to do a straight up and down vote on the budget and the debt ceiling for the good of America makes him a hero. Not doing so just makes him a Tea Party tool.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News Over Syria Coverage: 'Who Cares HOW We Avoided A War...' (VIDEO)
Jon Stewart - the man who brought us "Baracknophobia" - blasts Fox this week for their fanatical opposition to President Obama ("the devil"). They do this not with well reasoned argument on policy but rather with fear that serves to increase and feed their "brotherhood".
Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News Over Syria Coverage: 'Who Cares HOW We Avoided A War...' (VIDEO):
'via Blog this'
I get that Fox opposes the Syria peace plan because its modus operandi is to foment dissent in the form of a relentless, irrational contrarianism to Barack Obama and all things Democratic to advance its ultimate objective of creating a deliberately misinformed body politic whose fear, anger, mistrust and discontent is the manna upon which it sustains its parasitic, succubus like existence, BUT... sorry, I blacked out for a second I was saying something? (emphasis mine)This is epic. Watch:
Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News Over Syria Coverage: 'Who Cares HOW We Avoided A War...' (VIDEO):
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Welcome to the Rhetoric Goat!
Welcome!
Eric Covington and I started this blog in the Spring of 2010 as we prepared to see Sarah Palin speak at the first Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tn. Thanks to the generosity of then MTSU Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, Mark Byrnes, we had been able to purchase two tickets to the dinner and her keynote speech at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel. We started this blog as a place to talk about our ideas and refer others who might be interested in what we were studying, too.
This all grew out of a class project that developed in my COMM 4650 (Rhetorical theory, history, and criticism) class in the Spring of 2009. On April 15th, the first ever "Tea Party" rallies were held around the country, and I was fascinated - pretty soon everyone was. What on earth were they protesting? Why? What was their goal?
What immediately caught our attention were the anti-Obama signs that dominated these events. Was the Tea Party FOR something or were they just AGAINST newly elected President Obama?
I assigned the class to read Eric Hoffer's work on "the True Believer" and his theory of Mass Movements. We had some great discussions looking at the Tea Party as well as the "Hope" campaign of Obama. Did they fit the criteria Hoffer described? How so? Why or why not? And who cares, anyway?
We had also already discussed in class the Republican party's challenge to re-brand themselves following their defeat in the 2008 Presidential election. How would they use rhetoric to constitute a new identity? What would they include, what would they change, who would be the voices of leadership?
So naturally, these discussions led us to consider if the Tea Party was going to be the new face of the Republican party. Little did we know in the Spring of 2009 how our curiosity about these topics would become political reality in the U.S. throughout the summer at the HealthCare Town Hall meetings and then throughout the next year as the Congress debated Health Care Reform. And then, in the Fall of 2010, the Tea Party made its formal debut in American politics by capturing a number of Congressional seats.
So the initial insight that prompted me to involve my students in the study of this (then completely) new movement turned out to be amazingly prophetic. And long before the 2010 mid-term election, we had some insights and predictions gained through rhetorical criticism papers completed for the rhetoric class. Eric's paper - an analysis of Tea Party ideographs - won the top undergraduate paper award at TCA in 2009. He continued his research with me during an Independent Study in the Fall of 2009 and the formal paper he finished and submitted was accepted for presentation at the annual Theodore Clevenger Undergraduate Honors conference at the annual SSCA regional convention.
My own work was focused on the application of Hoffer's ideas to the Tea Party movement. First this required me to turn Hoffer's thoughts about audiences and rhetorical strategies into a theory of fanatical rhetoric. Then I had to determine how or if it fit the Tea Party movement (and later the OccupyWallStreet movement). This research and rhetorical theory development is what I am working on now and my papers working through this development have been competitively selected for three major regional conferences (SSCA and CSCA).
I was also interviewed for the NCA online journal, Communication Currents, in the Spring of 2011 about my theories and my perspective on the Tea Party and their "violence-flavored rhetoric" (which was my term for it). You can watch that interview here:
So throughout the years since we started it in 2010, this blog has become a "dumping ground" of sorts for things we/I found in research and internet journies that related to the study and the development of the fanatical rhetorical theory. We also share it with others who are interested in studying the Tea Party movement as a "library" of sources. It is certainly not complete nor does it even have any organization at this time; but the blog gets a significant amount of traffic every month, so somebody must find it useful.
If you search the archives you will find the actual blog posts I wrote along the way describing and explaining what we were seeing rhetorically in the Tea Party. Most of those posts were in early 2010, but there have been a number of them since then, commenting on signficant developments as the Tea Party gained power.
What tickles us is how right we were. Our insights may seem like "common sense" now, but they surely weren't in 2009-2010 when this study began. It's a useful reminder for us about following that "hunch" when it strikes. I thought this was going to be a huge rhetorical development in American politics, and it was. It still is.
It's not over. So stay tuned . . .
Feel free to leave us comments!
p.s. if you want to know the story behind the name, you can find it at the very beginning of the blog - February, 2010.
Eric Covington and I started this blog in the Spring of 2010 as we prepared to see Sarah Palin speak at the first Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tn. Thanks to the generosity of then MTSU Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, Mark Byrnes, we had been able to purchase two tickets to the dinner and her keynote speech at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel. We started this blog as a place to talk about our ideas and refer others who might be interested in what we were studying, too.
This all grew out of a class project that developed in my COMM 4650 (Rhetorical theory, history, and criticism) class in the Spring of 2009. On April 15th, the first ever "Tea Party" rallies were held around the country, and I was fascinated - pretty soon everyone was. What on earth were they protesting? Why? What was their goal?
What immediately caught our attention were the anti-Obama signs that dominated these events. Was the Tea Party FOR something or were they just AGAINST newly elected President Obama?
I assigned the class to read Eric Hoffer's work on "the True Believer" and his theory of Mass Movements. We had some great discussions looking at the Tea Party as well as the "Hope" campaign of Obama. Did they fit the criteria Hoffer described? How so? Why or why not? And who cares, anyway?
We had also already discussed in class the Republican party's challenge to re-brand themselves following their defeat in the 2008 Presidential election. How would they use rhetoric to constitute a new identity? What would they include, what would they change, who would be the voices of leadership?
So naturally, these discussions led us to consider if the Tea Party was going to be the new face of the Republican party. Little did we know in the Spring of 2009 how our curiosity about these topics would become political reality in the U.S. throughout the summer at the HealthCare Town Hall meetings and then throughout the next year as the Congress debated Health Care Reform. And then, in the Fall of 2010, the Tea Party made its formal debut in American politics by capturing a number of Congressional seats.
So the initial insight that prompted me to involve my students in the study of this (then completely) new movement turned out to be amazingly prophetic. And long before the 2010 mid-term election, we had some insights and predictions gained through rhetorical criticism papers completed for the rhetoric class. Eric's paper - an analysis of Tea Party ideographs - won the top undergraduate paper award at TCA in 2009. He continued his research with me during an Independent Study in the Fall of 2009 and the formal paper he finished and submitted was accepted for presentation at the annual Theodore Clevenger Undergraduate Honors conference at the annual SSCA regional convention.
My own work was focused on the application of Hoffer's ideas to the Tea Party movement. First this required me to turn Hoffer's thoughts about audiences and rhetorical strategies into a theory of fanatical rhetoric. Then I had to determine how or if it fit the Tea Party movement (and later the OccupyWallStreet movement). This research and rhetorical theory development is what I am working on now and my papers working through this development have been competitively selected for three major regional conferences (SSCA and CSCA).
I was also interviewed for the NCA online journal, Communication Currents, in the Spring of 2011 about my theories and my perspective on the Tea Party and their "violence-flavored rhetoric" (which was my term for it). You can watch that interview here:
So throughout the years since we started it in 2010, this blog has become a "dumping ground" of sorts for things we/I found in research and internet journies that related to the study and the development of the fanatical rhetorical theory. We also share it with others who are interested in studying the Tea Party movement as a "library" of sources. It is certainly not complete nor does it even have any organization at this time; but the blog gets a significant amount of traffic every month, so somebody must find it useful.
If you search the archives you will find the actual blog posts I wrote along the way describing and explaining what we were seeing rhetorically in the Tea Party. Most of those posts were in early 2010, but there have been a number of them since then, commenting on signficant developments as the Tea Party gained power.
What tickles us is how right we were. Our insights may seem like "common sense" now, but they surely weren't in 2009-2010 when this study began. It's a useful reminder for us about following that "hunch" when it strikes. I thought this was going to be a huge rhetorical development in American politics, and it was. It still is.
It's not over. So stay tuned . . .
Feel free to leave us comments!
p.s. if you want to know the story behind the name, you can find it at the very beginning of the blog - February, 2010.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
GO(tea)P
http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20111012/democrats-plan-war-on-tea-party-economics/
Well, duh!!!
Democrats are circulating a memo in which they make it clear they plan to brand the GOP as the party of “Tea Party economics” in the months ahead. The memo makes the case that the unpopularity of the Tea Party skyrocketed after the debt ceiling fight, and that America risks a “Tea Party recession” if the GOP continues to obstruct jobs bills from the President and other Democrats.
The Democratic memo argues that “Tea Party economics” are hurting the economic recovery, citing economists from the left and right who have supported solutions like tax cuts, revenue raisers, and jobs bills that Tea Party-influenced Republicans have rejected.
Well, duh!!!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Is the Tea Party Over?
Article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/is-the-tea-party-over.html
UPDATE (10-19-11): Obviously not! http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-urges-businesses-stop-hiring-order-hurt-obama
UPDATE (10-19-11): Obviously not! http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-urges-businesses-stop-hiring-order-hurt-obama
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Tea Party's frustrated state of mind . . .
This weekend, the front page of USA Today features a story on the Tea Party. The reporters, Page and Jagoda, open the article by noting:
"The Tea Party is less a classical political movement than a frustrated state of mind."
I've been saying since April 15th of 2009 that the Tea Party is what Eric Hoffer describes as a "Mass Movement" comprised of "True Believers." This was my original hypothesis and theory that my students set out to investigate with me in COMM 4650, and I specifically addressed the issue of frustration as a key element of their rhetorical movement when Eric and I were preparing to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville in February, 2010.
Hoffer specifically states in the introduction to his work, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of Mass Movements" (1951) that:
Eric's study of the rhetorical ideographs that structure and inspire the Tea Party movement was one piece of the puzzle for understanding HOW the frustrated are being persuaded to join this particular mass movement. One of the primary rhetorical strategies of Tea Party advocates is the use of a new political ideograph he identified as "security". By fueling an already frustrated public with repeated and ever greater fears for their economic and homeland security, popular Conservative pundits like Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Palin have been very successful in promoting and growing the Tea Party mass movement.
The Tea Party really has no consistent or coherent political agenda other than to fanatically oppose the current political status quo and many members "...acknowledge they aren't really sure what that allegiance means". However, I realized early on (ala Hoffer) that this particular movement mostly creates identification specifically and consistently through antithesis to President Barack Obama more than any other theme or goal, making him the scapegoat and target for their insecurities and frustrations. Whatever else the Tea Party may be, our first-hand experience with members at the first national Tea Party convention in Nashville confirmed for us the personal and vehement hatred and opposition to the current POTUS by members attending the convention.
While some have chalked this anti-thesis and opposition up to racism or fascism, those answers are too simple to explain the growing membership and rise of the Tea Party movement. Not all of the Tea Party members are racist per se, but racists are certainly an easy target audience for this particular mass movement. And certainly the members of the Tea Party do not consider themselves fascist, instead projecting this quality onto Barack Obama (another fear tactic).
Instead, the more comprehensive answer to the question of the Tea Party movement must investigate the antithetical rhetorical identifications and the FANATICAL nature of its rhetoric as well as the insecurities and frustrations of its "true believer" membership.
"The Tea Party is less a classical political movement than a frustrated state of mind."
I've been saying since April 15th of 2009 that the Tea Party is what Eric Hoffer describes as a "Mass Movement" comprised of "True Believers." This was my original hypothesis and theory that my students set out to investigate with me in COMM 4650, and I specifically addressed the issue of frustration as a key element of their rhetorical movement when Eric and I were preparing to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville in February, 2010.
Hoffer specifically states in the introduction to his work, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of Mass Movements" (1951) that:
“This book concerns itself chiefly with the active, revivalist phase of mass movements. This phase is dominated by the true believer the [person] of fanatical fairth who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause - and an attempt is made to trace [their] genesis and outline [their nature]. Starting out from the fact that the frustrated predominate among the early adherents of all mass movements and that they usually join of their own accord, it is assumed: 1) that frustration of itself, without any proselytizing prompting from the outside, can generate most of the peculiar characteristics of the true believer; 2) that an effective technique of conversion consists basically in the inculcation and fixation of proclivities and responses indigenous to the frustrated mind.” (p. xii)
Eric's study of the rhetorical ideographs that structure and inspire the Tea Party movement was one piece of the puzzle for understanding HOW the frustrated are being persuaded to join this particular mass movement. One of the primary rhetorical strategies of Tea Party advocates is the use of a new political ideograph he identified as "security". By fueling an already frustrated public with repeated and ever greater fears for their economic and homeland security, popular Conservative pundits like Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Palin have been very successful in promoting and growing the Tea Party mass movement.
The Tea Party really has no consistent or coherent political agenda other than to fanatically oppose the current political status quo and many members "...acknowledge they aren't really sure what that allegiance means". However, I realized early on (ala Hoffer) that this particular movement mostly creates identification specifically and consistently through antithesis to President Barack Obama more than any other theme or goal, making him the scapegoat and target for their insecurities and frustrations. Whatever else the Tea Party may be, our first-hand experience with members at the first national Tea Party convention in Nashville confirmed for us the personal and vehement hatred and opposition to the current POTUS by members attending the convention.
While some have chalked this anti-thesis and opposition up to racism or fascism, those answers are too simple to explain the growing membership and rise of the Tea Party movement. Not all of the Tea Party members are racist per se, but racists are certainly an easy target audience for this particular mass movement. And certainly the members of the Tea Party do not consider themselves fascist, instead projecting this quality onto Barack Obama (another fear tactic).
Instead, the more comprehensive answer to the question of the Tea Party movement must investigate the antithetical rhetorical identifications and the FANATICAL nature of its rhetoric as well as the insecurities and frustrations of its "true believer" membership.
"Starting out from the fact that the frustrated predominate among the early adherents of all mass movements . . . "
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Former POTUS Bill Clinton on radical anti-government rhetoric . . .
Bill Clinton looking back at the rhetorical climate of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to compare and contrast with 2010 Tea Parties.
Interesting but seemingly rare example of someone on the left explicitly countering RW rhetoric with a direct argument rather than mockery or silence.
I have trouble seeing the Tea Party as a social movement as long as there are so many anti-government radicals associated with it. Defining our democratically elected government as anti-American or making a false analogy with Britain''s King George is damaging our ability to find any common ground. To limit "American" to those on the right - or to identify the right in anti-thesis to the "un-American" left = is to spur a fanatical patriotism for many radical conservatives who may ultimately choose to take violent action against this supposedly "un-American" and uber-liberal government.
There is perhaps a fine rhetorical line between advocacy for better ideas and conditions to help groups and the kind of propaganda that merely seeks to demonize and destroy groups. I think as long as the Tea Party crafts and performs a political identity from what they are against rather than what they are for, and as long as their anti-thetical demon is this administration and government, then citizens will have to be extra alert to the possibility of hyperbolic rhetoric gone too far awry - and be prepared to speak more directly and firmly in return about common grounds and "American" values in the United States.
There can be no mere difference of opinion on this issue it seems to me. To turn Americans against one another by demarcating an "us" and a "them" and to refuse to share our common grounds as Americans is to open ourselves to civil warfare - be it verbally punishing or physically violent.
I think that rhetorical state of affairs in the United States today is unacceptable in light of our history and traditions - and the efforts of the Founding Fathers to provide us all with a SHARED democratic republic - and an enduring plan of harmony and unity - liberty and responsibility - reason and real debate. And any useful debate on the policies and future of the United States must begin at least with the common ground and understanding that we are ALL Americans. As such we have a right and a responsibility to pay attention to our government, but to portray the democratically elected government as un-American is outside the frame of useful or rational debate. It hurts us all.
Interesting but seemingly rare example of someone on the left explicitly countering RW rhetoric with a direct argument rather than mockery or silence.
In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, Clinton warned of the affect that angry political rhetoric might have on antigovernment radicals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh; he pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann calling the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress "the gangster government" at a tax day Tea Party rally on Thursday.
"They are not gangsters," Clinton told the newspaper. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."
Clinton said that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd.
I have trouble seeing the Tea Party as a social movement as long as there are so many anti-government radicals associated with it. Defining our democratically elected government as anti-American or making a false analogy with Britain''s King George is damaging our ability to find any common ground. To limit "American" to those on the right - or to identify the right in anti-thesis to the "un-American" left = is to spur a fanatical patriotism for many radical conservatives who may ultimately choose to take violent action against this supposedly "un-American" and uber-liberal government.
There is perhaps a fine rhetorical line between advocacy for better ideas and conditions to help groups and the kind of propaganda that merely seeks to demonize and destroy groups. I think as long as the Tea Party crafts and performs a political identity from what they are against rather than what they are for, and as long as their anti-thetical demon is this administration and government, then citizens will have to be extra alert to the possibility of hyperbolic rhetoric gone too far awry - and be prepared to speak more directly and firmly in return about common grounds and "American" values in the United States.
There can be no mere difference of opinion on this issue it seems to me. To turn Americans against one another by demarcating an "us" and a "them" and to refuse to share our common grounds as Americans is to open ourselves to civil warfare - be it verbally punishing or physically violent.
I think that rhetorical state of affairs in the United States today is unacceptable in light of our history and traditions - and the efforts of the Founding Fathers to provide us all with a SHARED democratic republic - and an enduring plan of harmony and unity - liberty and responsibility - reason and real debate. And any useful debate on the policies and future of the United States must begin at least with the common ground and understanding that we are ALL Americans. As such we have a right and a responsibility to pay attention to our government, but to portray the democratically elected government as un-American is outside the frame of useful or rational debate. It hurts us all.
Friday, February 5, 2010
"We need to read Eric Hoffer . . . "
This particular rhetorical criticism project began April 15th, 2009 - the day I was late to my rhetoric class because I was fascinated watching the tea party protests on the noonday local news in Nashville. I was also following blogger Oliver Willis as he began live tweeting from one in Washington, DC. And all I could think about this rhetorical phenomenon as I drove to class was: "we need to read Eric Hoffer."
I began reading and discussing Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" with my rhetoric classes in the Fall of 2001. After 9/11, we spent a great deal of time talking and making sense. And one thing that just didn't make sense was the fanatical nature of Al-Qaeda. It also seemed to me that we needed to be mindful of our own nationalism; that our collective bonding in the face of such horror must not deterioriate into blind fanatical rhetoric and behavior of our own. So, because it helped us make sense of this rhetoric of our time, we would read Eric Hoffer's classic analysis of fanatical social movements at the end of every semester through the spring of 2004.
I've since changed Universities, and I've been teaching other courses since then, so I didn't include Hoffer in my course syllabus when I was assigned to teach a rhetoric course again last spring. It simply didn't seem as necessary to consider his work that winter because fanaticism per se was not so much in the public eye then. Mostly it was celebration and exultation following the election of Mr. Barack Obama as POTUS. And President Obama's rhetoric is not True Believer/fanatic rhetoric. It may be many things, but it is not that. So, I edited Hoffer readings and discussions out of my syllabus in favor of trying some different learning activities that are currently more in vogue with educators (i.e. group projects).
But then came Rush "I hope he fails" Limbaugh . . . and the army of True Believers that followed him. They had a very clear fanatical "devil" = any and all things un-American. And that's fine as far as it goes - I am pretty passionately patriotic, too. But they weren't standing up for American values, they were standing against a very specific un-American devil = the President of the United States, Barack Obama (and his leagues of evil liberal minions).
Jon Stewart captured and confronted the spirit of this developing rhetorical community quite well when he said on the April 7th Daily Show episode "Baracknphobia": "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing...See, when the guy you disagree with gets elected, he's prob going to do things you disagree with...That's not tyranny, that's Democracy. See, now you're in the MINORITY. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco."
This demonization rhetoric characteristic of True Believer movements intensified throughout the spring, reaching it's first peak and public organization with the Tea Party protests on April 15th, once again prompting a "perspective by incongruity" from Jon Stewart on "Tea Party Tyranny".
To make the President of the United States and the US Government into an Un-American rhetorical devil like this is the hallmark of True Believers and Mass Movements, ala Eric Hoffer. And it was this rhetoric - this increasingly vehement, vitriolic, vengeful and intensely political action - toward our constitutionally elected leaders in the spring of 2009 - that made me throw out the vogue but bland course syllabus and start seriously discussing rhetorical current events with my students again. We voted to scrap the group projects and read Eric Hoffer and take a closer, academic look at this rising mass movement against the POTUS and US Government as our real time rhetorical criticism for the remainder of the semester.
My co-blogger, @coviner, was one of those students - and he has done great research on this topic with me since then, culminating in two conference papers that have used the tools of rhetorical criticism to dispassionately and academically investigate this rhetoric. He began by analyzing popular Conservative pundits, and then turned his attention to the tea parties and other rising true believer voices. His analysis of their ideographs and my application of Hoffer's ideas to this rhetorical discourse community form the core of our ongoing rhetorical criticism project seeking to understand the new social movements that have grown since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
As luck would have it, the first Tea Party Nation convention is being held in Nashville, and we have the opportunity to study some of the discourse first hand. Thanks to our generous and adventurous assistant Dean of Liberal Arts, and the University mission to support student-faculty scholarship, we have two tickets to their dinner, to enrich and extend the rhetorical analysis we've established this far. We'll share that experience here - as well as some other insights from our ongoing rhetorical criticism project. We invite and welcome your thoughts and ideas, too.
Next up . . . a summary of Eric Hoffer's theories of True Believers and Mass Movements as a method for rhetorical criticism.
I began reading and discussing Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" with my rhetoric classes in the Fall of 2001. After 9/11, we spent a great deal of time talking and making sense. And one thing that just didn't make sense was the fanatical nature of Al-Qaeda. It also seemed to me that we needed to be mindful of our own nationalism; that our collective bonding in the face of such horror must not deterioriate into blind fanatical rhetoric and behavior of our own. So, because it helped us make sense of this rhetoric of our time, we would read Eric Hoffer's classic analysis of fanatical social movements at the end of every semester through the spring of 2004.
I've since changed Universities, and I've been teaching other courses since then, so I didn't include Hoffer in my course syllabus when I was assigned to teach a rhetoric course again last spring. It simply didn't seem as necessary to consider his work that winter because fanaticism per se was not so much in the public eye then. Mostly it was celebration and exultation following the election of Mr. Barack Obama as POTUS. And President Obama's rhetoric is not True Believer/fanatic rhetoric. It may be many things, but it is not that. So, I edited Hoffer readings and discussions out of my syllabus in favor of trying some different learning activities that are currently more in vogue with educators (i.e. group projects).
But then came Rush "I hope he fails" Limbaugh . . . and the army of True Believers that followed him. They had a very clear fanatical "devil" = any and all things un-American. And that's fine as far as it goes - I am pretty passionately patriotic, too. But they weren't standing up for American values, they were standing against a very specific un-American devil = the President of the United States, Barack Obama (and his leagues of evil liberal minions).
Jon Stewart captured and confronted the spirit of this developing rhetorical community quite well when he said on the April 7th Daily Show episode "Baracknphobia": "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing...See, when the guy you disagree with gets elected, he's prob going to do things you disagree with...That's not tyranny, that's Democracy. See, now you're in the MINORITY. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco."
This demonization rhetoric characteristic of True Believer movements intensified throughout the spring, reaching it's first peak and public organization with the Tea Party protests on April 15th, once again prompting a "perspective by incongruity" from Jon Stewart on "Tea Party Tyranny".
To make the President of the United States and the US Government into an Un-American rhetorical devil like this is the hallmark of True Believers and Mass Movements, ala Eric Hoffer. And it was this rhetoric - this increasingly vehement, vitriolic, vengeful and intensely political action - toward our constitutionally elected leaders in the spring of 2009 - that made me throw out the vogue but bland course syllabus and start seriously discussing rhetorical current events with my students again. We voted to scrap the group projects and read Eric Hoffer and take a closer, academic look at this rising mass movement against the POTUS and US Government as our real time rhetorical criticism for the remainder of the semester.
My co-blogger, @coviner, was one of those students - and he has done great research on this topic with me since then, culminating in two conference papers that have used the tools of rhetorical criticism to dispassionately and academically investigate this rhetoric. He began by analyzing popular Conservative pundits, and then turned his attention to the tea parties and other rising true believer voices. His analysis of their ideographs and my application of Hoffer's ideas to this rhetorical discourse community form the core of our ongoing rhetorical criticism project seeking to understand the new social movements that have grown since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
As luck would have it, the first Tea Party Nation convention is being held in Nashville, and we have the opportunity to study some of the discourse first hand. Thanks to our generous and adventurous assistant Dean of Liberal Arts, and the University mission to support student-faculty scholarship, we have two tickets to their dinner, to enrich and extend the rhetorical analysis we've established this far. We'll share that experience here - as well as some other insights from our ongoing rhetorical criticism project. We invite and welcome your thoughts and ideas, too.
Next up . . . a summary of Eric Hoffer's theories of True Believers and Mass Movements as a method for rhetorical criticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)