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.