We are all familiar with the children’s story, “The Little Engine Who Could.” This memorable little narrative embodies American ideals such as rewarding the good, caring for others, self-sacrifice, and the value of hard work. In the story, a train filled with toys for little children breaks down. Several other engines that are too busy or too self-important to help the toy train pass it by, and the stranded little toy train is discouraged by the other engines’ lack of compassion. Finally, one engine stops to help the toy train—for all intents and purposes, the engine is much too small to pull the train to its destination, but through determination and sheer will, it completes the task and delivers the rewards to the children.
Today, public education is a derailed train. No Child Left Behind failed to drive public education toward improvement, and is currently, a broken policy. Public education sits stalled, by the wayside, as the current administration moves forward in other directions. It seems that public education isn’t important enough to warrant the attention of policymakers.
Even on the campaign trail, many of the candidates gloss over the problems with public education. Alone it sits on the side of the tracks until a determined candidate like Barrack Obama comes along. The task of reforming public education is enormous, but Obama’s plans to take on the issue with determination, continued commitment, and sheer will. With innovative plans for reform and promises of increased federal funding (see this site for details http://obama.senate.gov/issues/education/index.html), Obama is the “Little Engine Who Could,” taking on the plight of the failing public school system—a sure reward for deserving American children. His "yes we can" attitude is entirely indicative of the American ideals embedded in this childrens story.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Slinging Some Mud on a Terrible Article
I’m a bit ashamed to say that I’m about to sling some mud—on a really terrible article about McCain. While researching for the previous blog entry (“The Candidates on Education: Toying with Our Emotions?”), I dug up an International Herald Tribune article about McCain’s family, written by someone named Jennifer Steinhauer. Please feel free to check it out: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/27/america/27mccainkids.php.
As I read “The McCain family: Bridging 2 marriages and 4 decades, a large, close-knit brood,” I was completely baffled. I wondered, “Is this an anti-McCain piece? Or, more interestingly, is it a pro-McCain piece that went wrong?” I’m still unsure which it was intended to be, but one thing I am positive about is that it’s so terrible that it is a fascinating piece of rhetorical “craftsmanship” for analysis.
I’m going to make some lists to show why Ms. Steinhauer (whom we will heretofore refer to as Jen) confounded me:
Exhibit A: List of statements that seem “Pro-McCain”
1. But they [McCain’s 7 kids] are largely absent in a primary battle in which families — and all that their presence implies — are central ornaments.
2. Yet unlike the absent children of Rudolph Giuliani, who have strained relations with their father, the McCain children speak with endearment of McCain.
3. As they did in childhood, the McCain children still find one another by their father's side: in rafting boats, on hikes in the Grand Canyon, on mopeds in Bermuda and relaxing in Arizona.
4. For Doug, Andy and Sidney, McCain's oldest daughter, the earliest memories of McCain were his absence. The family lived on modest means in a Navy community in Florida while McCain languished in prison camps in Vietnam.
5. McCain was the sort of father who would not discuss his torture at the hands of Vietnamese captors, who kept his emotions close, and whose second-oldest son saw him emotional only once, when a pet dog died. He was not the father sitting in the front row at back-to-school night, lobbing questions about curriculum, or the presence at the end of the bed after a bad date. But each of his children described him still as the most fun guy in the room.
Exhibit B: List of statements that are Super Confusing and Make No Sense Either Way
1. They have maintained close relations with him in spite of long absences during childhood, a period of intense disappointment — among his older children when McCain remarried — and the breadth of geography and generations.
2. Asked during an interview this fall about his reluctance to bring attention to his expansive brood, the normally loquacious John McCain, who is unabashed on any number of topics, seemed uncomfortable. "It's intentional," he said. "I just feel it's inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don't want people to feel that, it's just, I'd like them to have their own lives. I wouldn't want to seem like I'm trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it's a private thing."
3. If you wanted face time with Dad, you approached him as he stood over a sizzling grill. ("You can have an audience with him because he doesn't want to leave the meat," Andy said.)
4. On his return, his children found a discipline-minded dad who expected the yard raked, was intolerant of back talk, maintained a constant presence at the Little League games, where the handsome former prisoner of war drew crowds of admirers, or at their beach house, crabbing at low tide. "Dad was the spotter," Andy recalled. "Just don't miss one. You miss a crab and he'd get angry. He was very competitive that way."
5. McCain's job as commanding officer of the Navy Replacement Air Group meant he was home for dinner each night, yet he struggled at times to find his domestic role.
6. When the family went to a wrestling match at the Naval Academy and a group of thuggish kids would not get out of their seats, McCain told them, "You need to get out of those seats or I'll get someone to get you out of them," Andy recalled. "He was just a tough guy. And I remember feeling proud of that.”
Exhibit C: List of statements that seem “Anti-McCain”
1. “But we didn't have a problem knowing who was in charge. If you wanted to deviate from expected policy and he said no, he never felt an obligation to give you a reason."
2. After years of waiting for their family to congeal, the children were devastated when McCain left their mother for another relationship. McCain soon began a new life with Cindy.
3. "It was very, very difficult," said Andy, who — like his siblings — did not attend the wedding, and only met the McCain's second wife years later, in his father's Senate office.
4. The second family, children of privilege who grew up in the quickly developing Southwest, experienced an altogether different paternal presence, the senator-father who arrived on Friday nights from Washington, often to pass the weekends in the family country hideaway, but who was absent from the both the mundane and profound routines of growing up.
5. His relationship with Sidney, 41, is perhaps the most politically interesting. Sidney, a registered Democrat, has worked in the music business for years, and was the child who challenged McCain's authority the most. She continues to debate him on a wide variety of issues.
6. The second chapter of McCain's parenting life found him an established politician who spent most of his time in Washington, leaving his wife and small children for most of the week.
So…it's official: I'm still confused about Jen's point. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Jen intended to write a pro-McCain story—one about how the former POW has managed to “bridge” two families in order to raise his seven children. If that were the case, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the multiple references to McCain being an absent father figure are probably not the best idea. I’d also steer clear of the quotes about the devastation that McCain caused his oldest children when he left their mother for Cindy. And—at least while he’s campaigning for President as a REPUBLICAN—I might leave out the fact that his daughter is a Democrat.
Sigh. Now, if, on the other hand, Jen’s intention was to write an expose about the familial failings of McCain, I would urge her to leave out the cuddly details about Meghan helping her dad to pick out “swank Timberlands” and the multi-family rafting vacations. And, for pete’s sake, what’s up with the slam on the other candidates for whom their “families — and all that their presence implies — are central ornaments?”
As you can see, this is—at best—a conflicted piece of writing. (Sorry, Jen!) We can only hope that Jen was in the process of “opinioning,” a term coined by Neil Postman, meaning that the constant influx of information (in this case, from many of McCain’s offspring) was continually shaping and reshaping her thoughts about McCain. Hmm. Well, I’m going to let Jen off the hook with the ol’ “opinioning” defense, because otherwise, I’d be right—that this is a really terrible article.
Note: On the up side, if anyone’s looking for a job as an editor, I think we know which publication surely needs one. Not mentioning any names...
As I read “The McCain family: Bridging 2 marriages and 4 decades, a large, close-knit brood,” I was completely baffled. I wondered, “Is this an anti-McCain piece? Or, more interestingly, is it a pro-McCain piece that went wrong?” I’m still unsure which it was intended to be, but one thing I am positive about is that it’s so terrible that it is a fascinating piece of rhetorical “craftsmanship” for analysis.
I’m going to make some lists to show why Ms. Steinhauer (whom we will heretofore refer to as Jen) confounded me:
Exhibit A: List of statements that seem “Pro-McCain”
1. But they [McCain’s 7 kids] are largely absent in a primary battle in which families — and all that their presence implies — are central ornaments.
2. Yet unlike the absent children of Rudolph Giuliani, who have strained relations with their father, the McCain children speak with endearment of McCain.
3. As they did in childhood, the McCain children still find one another by their father's side: in rafting boats, on hikes in the Grand Canyon, on mopeds in Bermuda and relaxing in Arizona.
4. For Doug, Andy and Sidney, McCain's oldest daughter, the earliest memories of McCain were his absence. The family lived on modest means in a Navy community in Florida while McCain languished in prison camps in Vietnam.
5. McCain was the sort of father who would not discuss his torture at the hands of Vietnamese captors, who kept his emotions close, and whose second-oldest son saw him emotional only once, when a pet dog died. He was not the father sitting in the front row at back-to-school night, lobbing questions about curriculum, or the presence at the end of the bed after a bad date. But each of his children described him still as the most fun guy in the room.
Exhibit B: List of statements that are Super Confusing and Make No Sense Either Way
1. They have maintained close relations with him in spite of long absences during childhood, a period of intense disappointment — among his older children when McCain remarried — and the breadth of geography and generations.
2. Asked during an interview this fall about his reluctance to bring attention to his expansive brood, the normally loquacious John McCain, who is unabashed on any number of topics, seemed uncomfortable. "It's intentional," he said. "I just feel it's inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don't want people to feel that, it's just, I'd like them to have their own lives. I wouldn't want to seem like I'm trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it's a private thing."
3. If you wanted face time with Dad, you approached him as he stood over a sizzling grill. ("You can have an audience with him because he doesn't want to leave the meat," Andy said.)
4. On his return, his children found a discipline-minded dad who expected the yard raked, was intolerant of back talk, maintained a constant presence at the Little League games, where the handsome former prisoner of war drew crowds of admirers, or at their beach house, crabbing at low tide. "Dad was the spotter," Andy recalled. "Just don't miss one. You miss a crab and he'd get angry. He was very competitive that way."
5. McCain's job as commanding officer of the Navy Replacement Air Group meant he was home for dinner each night, yet he struggled at times to find his domestic role.
6. When the family went to a wrestling match at the Naval Academy and a group of thuggish kids would not get out of their seats, McCain told them, "You need to get out of those seats or I'll get someone to get you out of them," Andy recalled. "He was just a tough guy. And I remember feeling proud of that.”
Exhibit C: List of statements that seem “Anti-McCain”
1. “But we didn't have a problem knowing who was in charge. If you wanted to deviate from expected policy and he said no, he never felt an obligation to give you a reason."
2. After years of waiting for their family to congeal, the children were devastated when McCain left their mother for another relationship. McCain soon began a new life with Cindy.
3. "It was very, very difficult," said Andy, who — like his siblings — did not attend the wedding, and only met the McCain's second wife years later, in his father's Senate office.
4. The second family, children of privilege who grew up in the quickly developing Southwest, experienced an altogether different paternal presence, the senator-father who arrived on Friday nights from Washington, often to pass the weekends in the family country hideaway, but who was absent from the both the mundane and profound routines of growing up.
5. His relationship with Sidney, 41, is perhaps the most politically interesting. Sidney, a registered Democrat, has worked in the music business for years, and was the child who challenged McCain's authority the most. She continues to debate him on a wide variety of issues.
6. The second chapter of McCain's parenting life found him an established politician who spent most of his time in Washington, leaving his wife and small children for most of the week.
So…it's official: I'm still confused about Jen's point. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Jen intended to write a pro-McCain story—one about how the former POW has managed to “bridge” two families in order to raise his seven children. If that were the case, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the multiple references to McCain being an absent father figure are probably not the best idea. I’d also steer clear of the quotes about the devastation that McCain caused his oldest children when he left their mother for Cindy. And—at least while he’s campaigning for President as a REPUBLICAN—I might leave out the fact that his daughter is a Democrat.
Sigh. Now, if, on the other hand, Jen’s intention was to write an expose about the familial failings of McCain, I would urge her to leave out the cuddly details about Meghan helping her dad to pick out “swank Timberlands” and the multi-family rafting vacations. And, for pete’s sake, what’s up with the slam on the other candidates for whom their “families — and all that their presence implies — are central ornaments?”
As you can see, this is—at best—a conflicted piece of writing. (Sorry, Jen!) We can only hope that Jen was in the process of “opinioning,” a term coined by Neil Postman, meaning that the constant influx of information (in this case, from many of McCain’s offspring) was continually shaping and reshaping her thoughts about McCain. Hmm. Well, I’m going to let Jen off the hook with the ol’ “opinioning” defense, because otherwise, I’d be right—that this is a really terrible article.
Note: On the up side, if anyone’s looking for a job as an editor, I think we know which publication surely needs one. Not mentioning any names...
The Candidates on Education: Toying with Our Emotions?
There is one topic in this presidential election about which everyone has some expertise: education. All of us have had some experience in a school system—some of us have had quite a lot. The topic of education is also one in which the majority of us have a vested interest, since our children will require education.
Due to the personal nature of our experience with education and the fact that it involves those closest to us—our families, our siblings, our children—it is impossible to separate emotion from the topic of education.
The candidates surely take advantage of our emotional ties to the topic of education in their attempts to convince us of their commitment to various educational ideals. As Westen explains, subconsciously, we make our most important decisions on the emotional level. So, while we might try to focus on the candidates’ logical plan for the future of American education, ultimately the candidates’ emotional framing is what will make our decision.
How have our candidates been manipulating our emotions? Well, with a potent combination of ethos (credibility) and pathos (blatant emotional appeals). That’s how.
Hillary has got some ethos mojo. She’s really working the fact that she is a mother. In addition to being a mom, she’s also written a book called, It Takes a Village, on the topic of education. Did I mention that she’s a mother? That truly gives her instant credibility on the topic of children and education. As far as pathos, the lady wore a potato necklace made by preschoolers at one of her speeches. She began to talk directly with the crowd, saying, “This is a gift, my beautiful, beautiful necklace from two of the pre-k students, Sofia and Savannah and it matches my jacket so I had to wear it and it has my initials, so I'm feeling very dressed up today.” Need I say more about Hillary’s pathos?
As a father, Obama scores some ethos points, too. Not to mention that he’s “had a lot of discussions with teachers”…
(quote from http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Education.htm) Okay, that was way harsh, but it illustrates my point that Obama lacks some of the ethos “credentials” packed by Hillary; but, Obama more than makes up for his ethos deficit through his effective use of pathos. This man is a wonderful orator: he manages to get close to just about every audience and he is exciting and inspirational. He achieves these things through management of pathos. In a talk to the National Educators Association (NEA), Obama uses a small story to create an effective emotional climate. He talks about how a young teacher in Chicago is tired of everyone telling her why “those kids” can’t learn. She is dedicated to teaching “our kids,” and that dedication is what fuels her to keep teaching although she isn’t getting the “support, pay, or respect she deserves.” Surely, after this story, emotions amongst the NEA members were running high.
Then, there’s McCain. Does anyone know about McCain’s family? Not so much, because McCain says, "I just feel it's inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don't want people to feel that, it's just, I'd like them to have their own lives. I wouldn't want to seem like I'm trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it's a private thing." Is this some kind of a trick? I’m not sure whether, by keeping his family hidden, McCain is the ultimate father (and therefore ethos packed), or just trying to hide the fact that he’s been married twice from conservatives, or if he’s spoiling all his credibility? (And believe me—he has a lot!) McCain seems to break the “emotional genius” mold established by the Republicans…
Anyway, McCain has by far the most parenthood-garnered ethos of the candidates, with a whopping seven children (some biological, some adopted). In addition, his wife—not sure first or second—is a special education teacher. McCain’s children, in a recent article, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/27/america/27mccainkids.php?page=2) said of growing up with their father that “if you make good grades and play sports and were willing to follow a few basic rules you can pretty much do what you want." This quote is relevant, since it seems to mirror his emotions about education now: he’s not an expert, and he’s not uptight about it, but he is a little bit cocky—choice and competition will make the difference in reforming American education, choice and competition. This laid-back tough guy personna (in a more positive sense: McCain’s quiet confidence) seems to be McCain’s approach to pathos.
Effective or not…and whether we know it or not…each of the candidates is toying with our emotions (about education). The reason that they’re so focused on pathos for this issue: because education is an issue that—from the American electorate’s point of view—is more emotional than rational.
Due to the personal nature of our experience with education and the fact that it involves those closest to us—our families, our siblings, our children—it is impossible to separate emotion from the topic of education.
The candidates surely take advantage of our emotional ties to the topic of education in their attempts to convince us of their commitment to various educational ideals. As Westen explains, subconsciously, we make our most important decisions on the emotional level. So, while we might try to focus on the candidates’ logical plan for the future of American education, ultimately the candidates’ emotional framing is what will make our decision.
How have our candidates been manipulating our emotions? Well, with a potent combination of ethos (credibility) and pathos (blatant emotional appeals). That’s how.
Hillary has got some ethos mojo. She’s really working the fact that she is a mother. In addition to being a mom, she’s also written a book called, It Takes a Village, on the topic of education. Did I mention that she’s a mother? That truly gives her instant credibility on the topic of children and education. As far as pathos, the lady wore a potato necklace made by preschoolers at one of her speeches. She began to talk directly with the crowd, saying, “This is a gift, my beautiful, beautiful necklace from two of the pre-k students, Sofia and Savannah and it matches my jacket so I had to wear it and it has my initials, so I'm feeling very dressed up today.” Need I say more about Hillary’s pathos?
As a father, Obama scores some ethos points, too. Not to mention that he’s “had a lot of discussions with teachers”…
(quote from http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Education.htm) Okay, that was way harsh, but it illustrates my point that Obama lacks some of the ethos “credentials” packed by Hillary; but, Obama more than makes up for his ethos deficit through his effective use of pathos. This man is a wonderful orator: he manages to get close to just about every audience and he is exciting and inspirational. He achieves these things through management of pathos. In a talk to the National Educators Association (NEA), Obama uses a small story to create an effective emotional climate. He talks about how a young teacher in Chicago is tired of everyone telling her why “those kids” can’t learn. She is dedicated to teaching “our kids,” and that dedication is what fuels her to keep teaching although she isn’t getting the “support, pay, or respect she deserves.” Surely, after this story, emotions amongst the NEA members were running high.
Then, there’s McCain. Does anyone know about McCain’s family? Not so much, because McCain says, "I just feel it's inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don't want people to feel that, it's just, I'd like them to have their own lives. I wouldn't want to seem like I'm trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it's a private thing." Is this some kind of a trick? I’m not sure whether, by keeping his family hidden, McCain is the ultimate father (and therefore ethos packed), or just trying to hide the fact that he’s been married twice from conservatives, or if he’s spoiling all his credibility? (And believe me—he has a lot!) McCain seems to break the “emotional genius” mold established by the Republicans…
Anyway, McCain has by far the most parenthood-garnered ethos of the candidates, with a whopping seven children (some biological, some adopted). In addition, his wife—not sure first or second—is a special education teacher. McCain’s children, in a recent article, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/27/america/27mccainkids.php?page=2) said of growing up with their father that “if you make good grades and play sports and were willing to follow a few basic rules you can pretty much do what you want." This quote is relevant, since it seems to mirror his emotions about education now: he’s not an expert, and he’s not uptight about it, but he is a little bit cocky—choice and competition will make the difference in reforming American education, choice and competition. This laid-back tough guy personna (in a more positive sense: McCain’s quiet confidence) seems to be McCain’s approach to pathos.
Effective or not…and whether we know it or not…each of the candidates is toying with our emotions (about education). The reason that they’re so focused on pathos for this issue: because education is an issue that—from the American electorate’s point of view—is more emotional than rational.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Barrack's "Shout-Out" to Patriotic Librarians
Obama's speech called, “Literacy and Education in a 21st Century Economy,” was given to the American Library Association (ALA)—a crowd of librarians—and I’m especially curious about what emotional appeals that Obama utilized, since the words “emotional” and “librarian” aren’t generally used in the same sentence.
I’m sure Obama (and/or his speech writers) were thinking, what makes librarians tick? Well, uh, books, libraries, reading. What is valuable to librarians? Giving people (oftentimes children) access to books. What would really tick off a librarian? Not being allowed to put valuable books into the hands of library patrons; illiteracy. Clearly, based on the speech that Obama delivered, all of these contextual ideas have been utilized in order to create the appropriate emotional climate for Barrack to impart his ideas.
First of all, Obama demonstrates the many connections that he has to librarians; he’s proving just how close he is to the audience, how much the same they are. Obama gives “shout-outs” (yes, he really said that) to ALA member, Nancy Gibbs, the mother of his communications director, Robert Gibbs. He also, touchingly, addresses the librarians from his Punahou School in Hawaii: Molly Lyman, Joan Kaaua, and Lillian Hiratani. These personal references, each one named, give Obama a lot of situational credibility: he’s enhanced his ethos with the crowd by proving how many librarians he is personally close with.
After establishing some ethos, and getting the crowd on his side—or at least closer to his side, Obama begins to lighten the mood. As I mentioned before, librarians aren’t generally considered to be the most emotional of creatures, so he needs to tap into this preconception. He makes a joke about his communications director: “Believe me, I have no idea how the biggest mouth in our office came from a family of librarians…” Now, these librarians feel close to Obama (ethos), they have just shared a little laugh (pathos), and now Obama leads them further into his speech (which is still laced with pathos).
Obama’s style gets rather formal and “high” as he describes how libraries are “more than a building that houses books and data, the library has always been a window to the larger world—a place where we’ve always come to discover big ideas and profound concepts that help move the American story forward…[and] at a time where truth and science are constantly being challenged by political agendas and ideologies…the moment we persuade a child, any child, to cross that threshold into a library we’ve changed their lives forever, and for the better.” Wow: this passage is both logical and emotionally charged. It’s got the librarians feeling a mixture of pride and a little bit of frustration about the government.
With his audience feeling the effects of this powerful mixture of emotions, Obama continues, “So I'm here to gratefully acknowledge the importance of libraries and the work you do. I also want to work with you to insure that libraries continue to be sanctuaries for learning, where we are free to read and consider what we please, without the fear of Big Brother peering menacingly over our shoulders.” Oh, snap! Let’s recap: I want to work with you. Where we are free to read. Big Brother peering menacingly over our shoulders. Apparently, now Barrack and the librarians are BFFs united against overbearing government control.
Barrack applauds librarians (using war imagery) for being “the ones who've been on the frontlines of this fight for privacy and freedom…ever since we've had to worry about our own government looking over our shoulders in the library, you've been there to stand up and speak out on privacy issues. You're full-time defenders of the most fundamental American liberties, and for that, you deserve America's deepest gratitude.” Obama continues to speak to his audience: about the issues they care about—and in a way that is very complimentary to them. I think that Obama’s subtle use of the language of war is really effective; it creates a (probably subconscious) mental bridge between the Iraq war and being patriotic in that sense and opposition to a “Patriot Act” that disregards civil liberties. One can be a patriot in either sense.
This analysis covers just the opening of the speech. Barrack is really opening up his rhetorical toolbox to make certain that he’s using all of the available means of persuasion and working the pathos of this audience most effectively. He wants them to be primed for the rest of the speech, which I will examine in the next blog.
I’m sure Obama (and/or his speech writers) were thinking, what makes librarians tick? Well, uh, books, libraries, reading. What is valuable to librarians? Giving people (oftentimes children) access to books. What would really tick off a librarian? Not being allowed to put valuable books into the hands of library patrons; illiteracy. Clearly, based on the speech that Obama delivered, all of these contextual ideas have been utilized in order to create the appropriate emotional climate for Barrack to impart his ideas.
First of all, Obama demonstrates the many connections that he has to librarians; he’s proving just how close he is to the audience, how much the same they are. Obama gives “shout-outs” (yes, he really said that) to ALA member, Nancy Gibbs, the mother of his communications director, Robert Gibbs. He also, touchingly, addresses the librarians from his Punahou School in Hawaii: Molly Lyman, Joan Kaaua, and Lillian Hiratani. These personal references, each one named, give Obama a lot of situational credibility: he’s enhanced his ethos with the crowd by proving how many librarians he is personally close with.
After establishing some ethos, and getting the crowd on his side—or at least closer to his side, Obama begins to lighten the mood. As I mentioned before, librarians aren’t generally considered to be the most emotional of creatures, so he needs to tap into this preconception. He makes a joke about his communications director: “Believe me, I have no idea how the biggest mouth in our office came from a family of librarians…” Now, these librarians feel close to Obama (ethos), they have just shared a little laugh (pathos), and now Obama leads them further into his speech (which is still laced with pathos).
Obama’s style gets rather formal and “high” as he describes how libraries are “more than a building that houses books and data, the library has always been a window to the larger world—a place where we’ve always come to discover big ideas and profound concepts that help move the American story forward…[and] at a time where truth and science are constantly being challenged by political agendas and ideologies…the moment we persuade a child, any child, to cross that threshold into a library we’ve changed their lives forever, and for the better.” Wow: this passage is both logical and emotionally charged. It’s got the librarians feeling a mixture of pride and a little bit of frustration about the government.
With his audience feeling the effects of this powerful mixture of emotions, Obama continues, “So I'm here to gratefully acknowledge the importance of libraries and the work you do. I also want to work with you to insure that libraries continue to be sanctuaries for learning, where we are free to read and consider what we please, without the fear of Big Brother peering menacingly over our shoulders.” Oh, snap! Let’s recap: I want to work with you. Where we are free to read. Big Brother peering menacingly over our shoulders. Apparently, now Barrack and the librarians are BFFs united against overbearing government control.
Barrack applauds librarians (using war imagery) for being “the ones who've been on the frontlines of this fight for privacy and freedom…ever since we've had to worry about our own government looking over our shoulders in the library, you've been there to stand up and speak out on privacy issues. You're full-time defenders of the most fundamental American liberties, and for that, you deserve America's deepest gratitude.” Obama continues to speak to his audience: about the issues they care about—and in a way that is very complimentary to them. I think that Obama’s subtle use of the language of war is really effective; it creates a (probably subconscious) mental bridge between the Iraq war and being patriotic in that sense and opposition to a “Patriot Act” that disregards civil liberties. One can be a patriot in either sense.
This analysis covers just the opening of the speech. Barrack is really opening up his rhetorical toolbox to make certain that he’s using all of the available means of persuasion and working the pathos of this audience most effectively. He wants them to be primed for the rest of the speech, which I will examine in the next blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)