As I was finishing the readings for this week, one quote really stood out for me. This quote to me can explain how and why people perceive rhetoric as something evil, especially when used in politics.
"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of the British rule in India...[and] the drooping of the atom bombs in Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness" (Booth 107).
I find this to be true and used too often. There have been many political speeches that I have heard in which the politician answers the reporter's questions without really answering the question. I don't know about you guys but it leaves me scratching my head thinking "what in the world...?" This leaves the audience saying things like "That was all rhetoric" and not really seeing what rhetoric is. I also see this as a person not taking their audience into account. It is like politicians are trying to confuse us on purpose and through all the vagueness and deceit our perception of rhetoric becomes misconstrued. Sure there are subject matters that may be harsh to hear but can cloudy run-around answers really help? The answer that I got from the quote is without vagueness and quite simple...no
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment