President Barack Obama has presented an economic stimulus package worth over 800 billion dollars. After wining a presidential campaign focused on unifying a partisan-divided America, Obama is finding little consensus on anything he has proposed in his first two weeks in office. In order to motivate the American government to pass this bill, Obama has used numerous rhetorical strategies: advisory, audience, situational and stylized. At a time when the entire global economy is facing a crisis, Obama is doing everything he can to persuade Americans to trust him by passing this stimulus plan.
Many people agree that American is divided based on political party preference. By aligning with certain values, you support one team or another while denying the other half of the country. There are many people who feel they have to choose the lesser of two evil political parties but a large majority ends up picking one side, one set of priorities. In order to win the 2008 presidency, Obama centered his focus on uniting a disappointed country, a people looking for a change. In order to keep up this theme, Obama has taken advice and suggestions from both sides but hasn’t been able to win in the end. It seems as if he is being pulled from both sides, forced to choose. In politics, you can’t please everyone so you can only please half, or so it seems. By being the first African American president, Barack Obama brought change to the White House, but can he keep it going?
Barack Obama put together an economic stimulus package in hopes of creating new jobs and boosting the economy. Citizens and economists from around the world have been debating the consequences if this bailout is passed and it seems like everyone is torn. In attempts to create consensus across the globe, Obama has been meeting with members from all parties and regions in order to gain a larger perspective. In his article, “The Same old Song,” Bob Herbert of The New York Times claims that republicans are delusional for wanting to increase tax cuts in order to help the economy. On the other hand, a Newsvine columnist by the name of Askari claims that if this bailout is passed, the economy is “doomed to fail.”
Bob Herbert makes numerous claims to support his overall argument such as; republicans have completely lost it, why does anyone listen to them? This totally violates the rebuttal principle. By saying that republicans have lost it, it gives them little ground to defend themselves. If Herbert had it his way, he said he would increase the stimulus package to a larger sum. Furthermore, republicans should have no say in the matter, look where they have got us today, he argues. In order to support his claim that republicans have no idea what they are talking about, Herbert quotes many republican office holders who argued that a recession was impossible, before it became a reality. Sure, these quotes may embarrass some republicans but Herbert makes a large overgeneralization when he says that all republicans think and feel this way.
In addition, Herbert is guilty of the “is/ought” fallacy in his article when he says tax cuts are not a viable solution to our economic crisis because they have never worked in the past when used by republicans. If that’s the way it is, that’s the way it ought to be. Herbert ends his article by asking, “why are we still listening to them [republicans]?” He must assume that simple listening is too much to ask for; republicans should be cut from the forum. However, as a journalist, Herbert should be willing to listen to multiple perspectives. Even our president, Barack Obama claims that he values a well-rounded bipartisan discussion.
In his article, “Obama Economic Recovery Plan Doomed to Fail” Askari makes several well-supported claims regarding Obama’s recent bailout proposal. Askari believes that Obama’s plan will destroy the value of the dollar, it will not benefit the economy the way Obama claims it will, there is already too much social program spending that needs to be tended to, the Obama bailout plan lacks numbers and logic and lastly, if people took the time to read the actual proposal, they would become aware of these details as well. Askari uses personal experience in Budget balancing for large corporations as support for his claims. He also sites the actual proposal, the Congressional Budget Office and the experience of other countries that have seen economic issues like we are experiencing today. By reasoning through analogy, Askari makes himself out to be very credible.
There were only a few minor warrants to Askari’s article. Within the article, he calls himself an independent who is not interested in “petty, political game playing.” He has and does assume that Ron Paul’s economic plan was superior because much more research was conducted. Askari criticizes Obama’s plan because it lacks research, numbers and logic; what certain jobs need to be created? What will happen if we give everyone a certain amount of money? On the other hand, Askari assumes that he knows all of the details of Obama’s plan while there might be a few surprises none of us know about.
Both authors articulate their claims as facts. Herbert expresses his opinions and supports them with pathos, making them seem factual. In contrast, Askari uses raw data, budget spread sheets and personal experience (a combination of ethos, pathos and logos) to support his arguments. Herbert assumes that his audience is primarily democratic and tired of “the same old song.” However, there are many republicans that are just as tired and democrats who don’t agree with him. Askari targeted his article to people who are blindly committed to Obama’s economic plan. He wrote it in such a way that most people have an easy time reading it. Also, he also assumes that they have not taken the time to read the actual proposal. Both authors value journalism but in different ways. Herbert plans on staying wildly loyal (appealing to the essence loci) to the Democratic Party. He values his partisanship above all else, even traditional journalism. Askari seems to value the facts, logic, and the loci of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
It is easy to be persuaded by both of these articles even though they appeal to different emotions, senses and loci. Herbert’s article pulls me because of the emotional appeal and the partisanship but Askari’s logic and rational thought forces me to think twice. Both articles are well written and cause movement in the mind of the reader. However, the discovery of many fallacies in Herbert’s article causes the reader to re-think the validity of his arguments, no matter how persuasive they are. As for the economic stimulus package, hopefully Obama will participate in more debate. Lets hope he keeps his eyes and ears open, or else we are all doomed to fail.
In recent news, the economic stimulus package has passed the first step, with no help from the GOP. Not one republican representative voted for the bill and surprisingly, eleven democrats voted against it. Maybe asking for suggestions from the right side was a bad idea? All they are proposing is more of the same: more tax cuts for the wealthy and benefits for homebuyers. While Obama has been toying with the idea, democrats are getting angry. It seems impossible that Obama is going to please both sides in the government but overall, most people are happy with the movements he has made thus far. If it becomes impossible to take advice from both sides of the political spectrum, how are we ever going to unite as a country? If the GOP doesn’t loosen up soon, this could end in a civil war: blue vs. red.
In the February 10th 2009 edition of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a political cartoon pokes fun at “all that pork” in the stimulus package. One large pig with the words “Stimulus Porkage” written on his side puckers up to a small man wearing a democrat t-shirt. The caption at the top reads “lipstuck on a pig.” Another cartoon above this one portrays an elephant in priest’s gear with the words GOP written on its clothing. While the GOP elephant preaches; “Have faith! Tax cuts alone will save us!” the republican caucus dances below him in a frenzy of happiness. Both of these political cartoons are attempts to stab at the character of the other side. By framing democrats as loving the recovery “porkage” and republicans praising a GOP elephant the cartoonist is committing an act of Ad Homonym. Also, there is hope that one will persuade the reader to support or not support the plan Obama has proposed.
Currently, the bill is in its final stages. Last night President Obama gave his first press conference in order to clear up any misconceptions about the bill and also to take roughly thirteen questions from major broadcasting centers around the nation. Most of the answers he provided to questions about the stimulus package included the word “catastrophe” and “this is my bottom line.” Last night Obama was warning us about what could happen if we don’t act now. Also, he was making the argument that he wants to do what’s best for the largest number of people. After visiting town halls in Elkhart, Indiana and speaking nationally to over 37 million people (more than the number of people who voted on American Idol during it’s premiere) the Senate finally passed this bill with the help of three new republican votes. They are happy to know that about one-third of the 800 Billion recovery plan will be going to tax cuts.
The MSNBC.com article titled, “Senate passes $838 billion stimulus bill” focuses on the most current edition of the stimulus bill. Lots of programs and money have been cut out in order to make room for the tax cuts republicans pleaded for. The homebuyer tax credits, possible tax breaks for new car buyers and school construction will be cut back also. This article, whose author is unknown, is an excellent piece of journalism. There were no obvious fallacies but straight facts about the most current state of this bill. However, because the article comes from MSNBC, which is known for leaning towards the left, the reader has to assume that there is a liberal bias behind the words of this article. That could change how the reader interprets the messages being sent. The final product of the stimulus package seems to be an equal division between what both parties wanted. It includes tax cuts but also “Obama’s signature $500 tax credit for 95 percent of workers.” Maybe bipartisan discussion does work after all.
During his opening statements, Obama used the loci of person by putting faces and imagery to the numbers of people that have lost their jobs recently. By using the reasoning of associative structures, he told stories about factory workers and military families, melting the hearts of the millions who watched. He also emphasized the loci of quality, explaining to the American people that this is uncharted water for America; this recession is unique so it requires special treatment and a large jolt, not just a little one. An article titled “Paying the Piper” published by the Economist on February 5th 2009 gives more detail on the cap Obama is placing on corporate pay checks. Starting very soon, executives can make no more than $500,000 dollars a year. This is very generous considering the fact that the President only makes $400,000 in comparison.
The author of this article tells us that this has been attempted in the past. In 1993, President Clinton tried to cap the salary of executives but they found loopholes in the plan and continued to make billions. But this doesn’t mean that it won’t work this time. Many of the authors of these sources are pessimistic and complaining about the current times. Almost all of the options for going forward are being shot down because of the is/ought fallacy in reasoning and Obama’s classic appeal to emotion. Some of these options have not worked in the past, why will they work now? or “Obama is just using another scare tactic to get us to believe him.” While it is understandable to be cautious, many of the fallacies these authors commit are not logically sound.
In conclusion, all the sources that have been rallying around the stimulus package have been answering to the rhetorical style of advisory, audience, situational and stylized. Every single one of the authors that has been examined has provided some sort of advice to the reader whether it’s through words or smaller fallacies. These authors also know their audience and the dire times we are facing. They know exactly what the American people need to hear right now and they use their own unique styles to persuade them to think one way or the other about this stimulus plan. Because the media is so prevalent in our culture, is it extremely critical to be able to analyze these sources so that the most credible information can be available to the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment