Political Rhetoric

Political rhetoric dates back thousands of years to the times of Aristotle and Plato, who were ancient Greek philosophers and some of the first people to define the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric has also been used politically for thousands of years and a good orator can persuade his audience using language, to vote for him to be elected. According to Dictionary .com Rhetoric “Is the art of making persuasive speeches and the art of using language effectively”. In this blog I will discuss how rhetoric in political campaigns creates cynicism in its audiences, how rhetoric has caused political practices to result in flawed policy making, and how rhetoric and its discourse can undermine national unity in America.

Political leaders have been using rhetoric for centuries to persuade their audiences and convince the audience that they are the best political candidate for that specific job. Unfortunately, many of these politicians have mislead these voters in the past with their use of rhetoric and as a result of this “ many Americans have become inclined to see politics as a game in which candidates on both sides are insincere and will do whatever it takes to win” (Hollihan Pg.277). It is no that the political rhetoric these politicians are using is bad, but rather the fact that they have constituently not stuck to their word on creating specific policies and following through with the initial ideas. This has created a lot of cynicism with American voters and has left them with the choice to vote for the candidate that they actually believe will follow through with their initial promises. A recent poll “For example, reported that just 16% of voters today believe that federal government today reflects the will of the American people. These figures reflect a sharp decline from the 1990's when more than 30% of Americans believed that the federal government reflected the will of the people” ( Hollihan Pg. 277). Politicians in today’s society are using political rhetoric to convince their audience that they are going to do certain things when they are elected but often fail to follow through when they do end up getting elected, this is what is leading the American people to no longer believe in the candidates and the political rhetoric they speak.

Political rhetoric is not only being used to mislead the American people when it comes to policies, but it is also being used to spite the other political competitors in political campaigning. According to Hollihan “the increased use of negative campaign ads has also led to a tendency to view political campaigns as battles in an ongoing war” (Hollihan Pg. 278). Political candidates are not only using rhetoric to persuade their audiences to vote for them but they are also using rhetoric to discourage voters from voting for other candidates. This has changed the focus of American voters and has made campaigning less about what Americans want and more about just winning the elections at any cost. These political candidates will do and say anything if they believe it will help them win the election, but many will never follow up on the promises they have made to the American people. Hollihan states “Some studies have suggested that the increased level of cynicism has caused some voters to virtually with draw from the political process altogether” (Hollihan Pg. 279). This is certainly the way I feel when it comes to participate in the political process and as a result, I did not vote in the last election. The new use of the political rhetoric in today’s political system is being used to lie to the voters of America and it has an extremely negative effect on political participation in the United States.

The next issue that I would like to discuss is how these new contemporary political practices may result in flawed policy making, due to their misuse of rhetoric. Hollihan states “that another reason we should be concerned about the ways political campaigns and political discussions are conducted today is that many of these current practices may result in poor public policies. On specific example of this is the increased use of public opinion polling” (Hollihan Pg. 284). Public opinion polling has many positive and negative effects which I have discussed in previous blogs, but in the case of political rhetoric, it is considered to be negative aspect. According to Hollihan “Such polling has made it much easier for campaign strategist to design messages that are tailored precisely to the opinions and interest of these clusters” (Hollihan Pg. 284). This is becoming a huge problem within political society of the United States and it is allowing campaign strategists to focus their political rhetoric and become even more persuasive when trying to convince their audiences to vote for them. This has made their rhetoric even more effective when targeting certain groups of voters and has began to divide America on a political level. This division of groups of people has made it easier for politicians to use their rhetoric to convince people of certain ideas, even though they may not be true. A good example of this occurred in the 1980's when president Regan targeted a specific audience and used rhetoric to persuade his audience on the issue of welfare. According to Hollihan “ such discourse was highly effective, suggesting as it did that such “welfare Queens” were scamming the system and gaining access to benefits that they did not deserve” (Hollihan Pg. 284). The problem with this is the fact that voters of targeted groups are being convinced of ideas that are not true and as a result of this many voters in these specific groups are no longer thinking outside the box. This use of rhetoric is hurting the overall unity of issues in America and is creating campaigns that are focused more on winning the election, instead of campaigns that truly focus on the greater good of American society as a whole.

The final issue that I would like to discuss is how this use of political discourses is undermining the national unity of America as a whole. As I have discuses previously the focus on targeting specific interest groups with persuasive rhetoric has decreased the unity of America. According to Hollihan “ the stability of American political system depends on the fact that after an election is completed, the people need to have some sense of confidence that the party in power will strive to serve the collective needs of the entire electorate, not just the needs of their partisans” (Hollihan Pg. 290). This is a major problem that Americans must begin to take seriously if we want a fair political system for our kids in the future. We need to make sure that when we receive the persuasive political messages from politicians that we take it upon ourselves to look at both sides of the issue, and try to resist being persuaded by their Political rhetoric. We need to especially focus on ignoring the negative campaign ads that politicians often present to us because this is the type of persuasion that they are counting on to win the election, not make positive change in America as a whole. I am strongly disappointed that we have let our politicians and political leaders use these campaign strategies to influence the way in which we vote. As Americans we need to recognize this problem and analyze the persuasive rhetoric that is being fed to us. If we can sift through the politicians persuasive language and use our minds to think about what is truly important to all Americans, then I believe we can create a more fair and efficient political system.

Overall, political rhetoric has been use by politicians and rhetoritician’s to persuade their audiences for centuries. It has become our job as American citizens to sift through this persuasive language and once again select the leaders who we feel are trying to make America a better place as a whole, not just win an election.



Works Cited
Dictionary.com. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. .
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: politcal Campaigns in the Media Age. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2009. Print.

Technological Communication

Over the decades political candidates have continued to adapt their campaign strategies to most efficient and effective ways of presenting and receiving information about people’s political views. It has been a long process that has lead up to the technological advances of current day society, like the internet. The internet was invented in 1973 by the “American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn”(Vinton 2009). It wasn't until 1983 that it became accessible to the general public. According to Hollihan this new advancement in technology has enabled both politicians and the general public to “communicate specific messages to specifically targeted voters” (Hollihan Pg. 200). In this blog I will discuss how the internet has fundamentally reshaped communication, the role it plays in political campaigns, and how cyberspace relates to the public sphere relate.

The invention of the internet in 1973 has no doubtfully changed the ways in which both politicians and the public communicate with one another. According to Hollihan “the internet is a global computer network that enables users to send email, other forms of text messages, graphics and video. Since it’s development, the internet has fundamentally reshaped communication.”(Hollihan Pg. 199). The internet has a multitude of uses which have directly impacted the way in which the general public receives its political information. According to Hollihan “the internet has had a significant impact on political campaigns, citizens political activism, and communication with elected officials”(Hollihan Pg. 200). The impact has continued to grow over the years because more nad more people have computers with internet capabilities. According to Hollihan “ Studies have shown that by 2007 211 million Americans, or almost 70 percent of the United States population was online and the number of users American users online represents almost half of the number of people online worldwide. (Hollihan Pg. 200). As other countries continue to grow, they will likely have increasing access to the internet in their countries as well and the advancement of technological communication will continue.

Although internet usage has continued to grow in both the United States and other countries over the past decade, not all internet users are using the internet to access political information. According to Hollihan “there is a substantial difference in usage attributable to age, income, and area of residence. These differences are referred to as the digital divide by policy makers” (Hollihan Pg.200). All three of these factors must be looked at when looking at the impact of new communication technology in politics. For instance, a political campaign might focus their online advertising towards 18 -25 year olds, since they are the ones who have the most internet access statistically. This does not mean that older generations are not using the internet to look at political policies and discussions, but rather they are just looking at them less than younger generations. Age is not the only factor that political parties look at when advertising online, they also look at the urban communities in which these people live. According to Hollihan “ in a 2006 study, 62 percent of rural households reported owing a home computer versus 71 percent of people owning a home computer in metropolitan areas. (Hollihan Pg 200). Hollihan also discusses the importance in the type of internet connection these people have. He states that this is significant because “the better the internet connection the faster the internet works, and the more satisfying the internet is for people to us”( Hollihan Pg.200).

The next issue that I would like to discuss is the use of the internet in political campaigns. The internet over the years has become more and more important in the effectiveness of political campaigns. It started off in the 1990's when political parties began using email to contact and influence people on who they should vote for in the upcoming political election. This was the first time that the internet was used to contact the general public about who they should vote for in the upcoming election, but it proved to be not very effective. According to Hollihan “the first campaigns where the internet arguably affected the outcome of the election occurred in the 1998 gubernatorial contest in Minnesota. Phil Madsen , executive director of the upstart reform party in Minnesota, declared that the internet served as the central nervous system in Jesse Ventura’s campaign for Governor” ( Hollihan Pg. 201). The internet is a tool that is used with other forms of the campaigning process like television, radio, and newspapers. According to Hollihan “the internet is a integral part of the modern campaign message circulation strategy” (Hollihan Pg. 201). The idea is to use the internet to reinforce that messages about the political campaign strategy that are created via offline sources like the ones I mentioned above. These messages are not only sent to the general public but are also sent to thousands of reporters, political action committees, party members, and labor union officials. These messages often state the goals of the political campaign and discuss questions and concerns about other political candidates. The internet allows for these messages to be sent out in mass quantities at a very rapid rate, which allows for rapid responses and more effective political campaigning. I myself have received a few of these campaign messages via email and although they didn't instantly change my mind about a political issue, they did make me think about the issues more thoroughly. There is no doubt that throughout the past decades the internet has changed the way in which political candidates distribute their information to the voters and it has also changed the amount of information about the political campaigns that is readily available to the voter at the click of a button.

The third and final issue that I would like to discuss is the way in which cyberspace and the public sphere interact. According to Hollihan “the dominate metaphor shaping American concepts of arguments in the public political arena has, for many years, been the notion of a market place of free ideas” (Hollihan Pg. 215). The marketplace of free ideas is simply the balance of private concerns with central public interests. In the democratic society of the United States it can often times be hard to differentiate the citizens private concerns to overall goals of the public sphere. Hollihan states that “ The internet has certainly altered power structures and made the public more unruly, while also helping individuals and groups find each other, organize, mobilize, and coordinate their interests” ( Hollihan Pg. 216). We must then consider the real question of whether it has hindered the people’s ability to think about the overall factor of public interest. The internet has taken away direct public interaction with candidates and as a result many ordinary citizens have felt that they have lost their voice altogether. I have definitely felt the effects of this myself because political advertising and campaigns have grown so vast, that I no longer feel that my vote really matters. I no longer believe that one individual American can truly make a difference in this new technologically advanced society. I believe that this is the way that many Americans are also feeling when it comes to politics and the individual citizen. According to Hollihan “The great casualty of the decline of the political marketplace has been the lost opportunity for meaningful public debates and dialogues on complex questions of public morality” ( Hollihan Pg. 217). Although technology has greatly changed our political society and the way in which it functions, there is no doubt that it has had some negative impacts on American society as a whole. Before the invention of the internet, our political systems functioned in a way “in which encouraged citizens to think communally and it created opportunities for meaningful public debates on complex social issues” ( Hollihan Pg. 217). This was considered to be a healthy way to have political discussions and encouraged public interaction, unlike the internet.

The internet has not only taken away public interaction but it has also taken away our privacy. According to Hollihan “another consequence of the internet as a site for political advertisement is the lack of privacy in cyberspace” (Hollihan Pg. 219). The government has the ability to look at our history and learn about the ways in which we use the internet, so they can advertise to us more effectively. This is not only scary to me but also makes me wonder with all these new technologies, just how much privacy will we have in the future. Although the internet has drastically changed the public sphere and the ways in which we find our political information, I don't know that it is a positive thing for our current day society.

Overall, the internet has drastically changed the ways we find political information, interact with our political leaders, and has changed the way in which we interact as a community as a whole. The real question is whether we can use this technology to make our political society more effective, without taken away the freedoms that were given to us via the constitution.


Works Cited

Cerf, Vinton. "Fascinating facts about the invention." The Great Idea Finder. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/internet.htm.

Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: political Campaigns in the Media Age. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2009. Print.