Higher Learning? More Like Higher Earning

Where did college go wrong? Many people consider these former institutions of higher learning to be the new high school, in more ways than one. When did “higher learning” itself change from something with meaning to just another canned phrase used by those in charge? In the bloggingheads video, William Deresiewicz of Yale University and Mark Edmundson of Virginia University postulate that part of it comes from the fact that universities no longer focus on the “big questions”, but on producing workers.

As William Deresiewicz states, college used to be something much different than it is today. For one thing, he says, they were religious institutions; this means that they were much more focused on religious ideals, which generally are about morality, being a good person, and answering such big questions as “what is the good life” and “what is the good society”. The colleges of today, however, are, with few exceptions, extremely secularized; this is a good thing in many ways, yet it does beg the question of how and where these questions are being asked.

Colleges truly are becoming the new high school. While this is not touched on explicitly in the video, it can be inferred with a few examples. High school talks about answering big questions, helping students become better people, and so on. It has a slew of general education classes with electives that focus on topics each student might wish to pursue; for example, a Photoshop class. Yet most students know that this is rhetoric and ignore it for what it is in favor of moving through the system as quickly as possible to go on in life. Is this sounding familiar? It is what college has become.

No longer is college focused on answering these questions, it simply says it is because they think if they don't point out the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room, no one will notice it. What it is focused on is money, money, money. As the video states, the claim to be non-profit yet they are shifting more and more towards not only making money, but producing workers who make even more money, in the hope that they will give some of that delicious money back to the school.

This is tied into what they also mention in the video, that colleges are not interested in creating thinkers, they are interested in creating “leaders”. That word is in quotes because no one, as William and Mark mention, really knows what it means. Certainly it cannot mean someone who leads, because if there were so many leaders, no one would have anything to lead. As stated earlier, it is simply another bumper-sticker phrase that actually means someone who will make money, and who “makes their way up the institutional pole, no matter how greasy it may be.” It is someone who embeds themselves in the system and plays by the rules, in contrast to a thinker.

A thinker, on the other hand, is much more easily defined, and isn't obfuscated by professional lingo. It is someone who is critical of themselves and their surroundings, of where they are, of their school, and of many other if not all other things. This is the kind of person that colleges used to create. No more, though. The colleges, want obedient workers. The government wants obedient workers. Society likes obedient workers. Therefore, colleges and universities do not want philosophers and people who can actually tackle the big questions they claim to want to answer themselves. No, they want to make game designers and lawyers and doctors and businessmen and famous musicians. They aim to produce little more beyond obedient workers.

What about Chapman? Is it a culprit in these shifts away from “institution of higher learning” to “obedient worker assembly line”? Let us go down the checklist: Does it claim to want to help students answer the big questions and make them into good people without actually achieving this? Yes. In fact, it has monuments across the campus dedicated to the “four pillars of education” or some such, yet how often do those come up in classes? Not often. Does it want thinkers? I've already heard of various situations where students or even teachers have been caught in the web of bureaucracy when they tried to ask questions or submit ideas on how to make things better. That doesn't look too good for Chapman's case. Does it want leaders? Most certainly. It obviously has a huge focus on the school of law and the school of business, both incredibly worthwhile professions to invest in, as a school. Half the campus seems to be built from donations from graduates of these facilities! It would appear that Chapman is indeed part of the problem.

What does it all mean, then? Are colleges corrupt institutions that no one in their right mind should send their children to? Of course not. Many are still great places to learn about subjects that you could never learn about otherwise. Some still adhere to the old standard, and those that do not are still wonderful for those who want to actually make above thirty thousand dollars per year, and in this day and age a Bachelor's Degree is the new high school diploma when it comes to applying for a job. This makes them a godsend for young adults who want to make it in the world; it is simply responding to the demand of society. This doesn't make it right, though, and doesn't mean it should remain this way. It is foolhardy to say that colleges are still the pristine centers of higher learning they once were, and it is for that reason that something has to change.

The Previously Dynamic College Experience

What has the college experience become? It was originally a place where students asked questions, a place where they wanted to learn. It was also a place where professors came to teach these enthusiastic young minds, not just filling them with answers but helping them raise new questions—big questions. The continued existence of these big questions is the topic of the bloggingheads video, and while they do a good job, ahem, raising the question, they don't come to a solid answer. The answer that they need to conclude with is that colleges have stopped asking these questions almost entirely, and have actually profited from this. Now, the debate is over who is to blame, the institutions or the students.

The learning process at colleges and universities is called 'higher education.' In elementary and middle schools students are the bucket part of the 'filling the bucket versus lighting the fire' metaphor. We are there to be prepared, to become proper receptacles for this higher education, or just to gain the basic assumed skills that society requires of us, like reading and writing. The original idea was that those students who decided to go to college loved learning and wanted to continue to do so to the farthest extent possible. Colleges served this purpose very well and encouraged the questioning of society as well as being, as one of the bloggingheads vloggers mentioned, “largely philanthropic organizations.” Thus the institution was able to “light the fire” among these very flammable minds. Colleges had this better purpose and thus warranted their higher education moniker.

Of course, we live in a very capitalist society, and money was soon to enter the fray. Students who enjoy creative writing and choose to pursue an english major often find that this is a dead end financially. And while we all want to do something that we love for the rest of our lives, we need to make money before we can do that—it's just the way our society works. So students have turned to business degrees and medical degrees and engineering degrees as sure ways to make money, and while some of the students find this to be the oxygen that their flame survives on, most find their fire snuffed out. Going to college is no longer about learning but has become yet another hoop to jump through so that students are prepared for the 'real world,' and so that they can say to that world 'I meet all of your demands, you owe me a job' and be confident that they will get that job. In the video, the vloggers talk about leaders versus thinkers. Thinkers were the buckets and leaders are the flames. Thinkers wanted to learn, they wanted to know who what why when how and where. They had questions that they would seek answers to and that was their priority. Leaders climb the system's pre-built ladder one rung at a time, and it is they who are rewarded. Leaders cause no change, good or bad, and because it is they who exist today, the system will continue to be unchanged and to support them.

So it is partly the fault of the students, who have lost the courage to pursue their favorite subject in exchange for security. However, the colleges also exist within this society and are subject to its monetary motivation. Colleges with big endowments live comfortably and are able to fulfill all of their functions and even expand. In the case of private schools, a small part of those endowments come from the government, but the majority comes from alumni donations. These private institutions are the ones that should especially be encouraging the growth of thinkers—they were set up by someone or some group that wanted students to have a place to learn; public universities are there more as vocational preparation. However, they have found that, in order to thrive and expand, they need money, and it is not thinkers who bring in the cash but the leaders. Thus it is in their interest to foster the development of these leaders and thus they do and they certainly profit from it—I believe Princeton has an endowment in the billions. Because of this, however, we are missing the questions that the thinkers had and their ability to change the system now that everyone is consumed with trying to advance along its beaten path where every other student has tread before. So it is partly the fault of the institutions who have lost the motivation to cultivate skepticism in exchange for prestige and expansion.

The bloggingheads contributors touched on all of this, and much of my argument parallels theirs. However, where they were just having a discussion, it should have been an attack. The questions that the thinkers asked were necessary to advancing the purpose of the universities and how they run, and hopefully bringing those same advances to society. The age of the thinker is over, and we need to recognize that this is a great loss and that it needs to be reversed. We as students have our share of the blame, and with that comes a responsibility to help fix the situation that we have created. If everyone is a leader, then who are we leading?

Bloggingheads Critique Rough Draft.

Computers are everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you are; there most likely will be some form of a computer somewhere in site. Whether it’s a desktop, laptop, palm pilot, or even a cell phone, these computers have taken over our society. As Mark Edmundson puts it, they have become the most influential pieces of technology of our day. And does this come to a surprise to any of us? People rely on computers for everything; people put their lives into computers. Technology has virtually taken over our lives, and Mark Edmundson and William Deresiewicz reiterate this notion through their observations and examples of their own college students, and how student culture in general has changed.

No one can deny it: computers are a great invention. They make writing, sending information and providing feedback much easier and faster. Edmundson even goes on to say that computers have created a generation of students who are “smart, restless, impatient and like to skate over the surface as quickly as possible.” Is this true? Have we really become smarter as a generation, yet sacrifice our patience and attentiveness? Although I hate to agree, I must say I feel Edmundson is correct. While we often tell ourselves we don’t need our computers, the reality is this: computers have become a complete necessity to our lives. It is the essential communication tool of our century. Edmundson says that he has heard from students that at parties, all the kids there are on their phones, merely talking to people at other parties that might be better than the one they are at now. He goes on to say that “no one is ever really ‘present’ anymore.” Students have jumped over the line of subtlety and will go great lengths just to secretly send a text message during an important lecture in class. We have become incredibly good at multitasking; we can take notes, talk to a friend via text message, send another friend an email, and comment on someone’s FaceBook all at the same time.

But don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this is a good thing. Quite the contrary, I feel this is the start of the deterioration of our society. Now, I love computers just as much as the next person; probably even more. But the fact that we rely on our computers so much is kind of sad to me. So many times have friends sent me text messages when they’re sitting literally thirty feet away from me. Why can’t they speak up? Simply put, technology has become a sort of bubble that is blocking us from the real world, and we’re incredibly comfortable in it. Deresiewicz and Edmundson state that we now bond with our computers, and this is completely true. Our computers have become the number one source of communication, therefore we feel we must stay strongly connected to it, or else we lose contact with others. Edmundson even states that we need our computer on at all times, because it is exciting to us students.

And how do we take advantage of this 24/7-computer availability? We stay awake with it, of course! Edmundson and Deresiewicz mention that our drug of choice is Aderol or a latte, simply to keep us energized and awake, just like our lovely friend the computer. But not only is it to keep our computers from being lonely, these “drugs” are for the multitude of extracurricular activities that our generation is so keen on joining. Deresiewicz mentions that the students he observes at Yale have become to involved in these activities that they have become the center of their lives, and it’s gotten to the point where they overwhelm their investment in their classes, for they have too much going on at once. Here at Chapman, students seem to be doing the same thing. I know many students who are taking eighteen credits, have two jobs and are taking part in some sort of athletic team, yet still somehow make time to see their friends and—of course—stay attached to their computers. We can’t help it: it’s in our nature to be taking on so much at once. We call ourselves lazy, but in all honesty, we do a lot more than we give ourselves credit for. Simply put, it’s part of the student culture.

Another essential part of student culture is our lack of standing up for ourselves. Of course we tell ourselves that we are independent, that we have our own minds, that we do what we want to do. But to what extent is that statement true? Deresiewicz and Edmundson tell us that we live in a monoculture, where no one will go against the grain and do something completely unexpected. I somewhat agree with this statement. Although I feel we as students are easily molded and therefore most of us don’t go against the status quo, I think it’s an unfair generalization among our generation. There are plenty of students who do things on their own without any influence from authority, and they definitely don’t fit this stereotype. I’ll admit that our generation may not be the most independent, but I do believe there are a good number of students who do go against the grain and stand up for themselves.

Through the multitude of topics covered in this seventeen-minute clip, Edmundson and Deresiewicz hit key points of their beliefs on student culture: we rely on our computers, our drug of choice is anything that will keep us awake and stimulated, and we live in a monoculture. Despite my slight disagreement with certain subjects, I feel that overall, Edmundson and Deresiewicz accurately depicted the culture of many students today.

Effectiveness of "The American Promise"

During the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Senator Barack Obama delivered a fiery speech entitled “The American Promise.” In this speech, he addressed domestic issues that have affected the U.S. since George W. Bush’s assumed presidency. Due to the important nature of this speech, Obama spoke with a forceful and convincing tone. The tone of the speech is effective in conveying hope to many people across the United States. His choice of words are simple and direct. Because of this, “The American Promise” is rhetorically effective in a way where Obama is able to connect with the average American and deliver guidance and support.
Obama establishes the connection with the average American by providing examples of common people with common struggles. He speaks of common workers losing jobs and military members leaving for Iraq for the fourth time. The use of rhetoric language is effective in these statements as Obama uses a simple choice of words to connect with uneducated, hard-working people in order to assure them the support they need in the future. Obama also emphasizes the hardship that the working class endures. He shows compassion and captivates the audience by speaking of failures and needs. For example, Obama says “Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach,” showing that he understands many common areas of economic needs. One of the most effective ways he establishes his connection with the working class is by the use of the phrase “Yes, we can.” The phrase “Si, se puede” used by Mexicans and migrant farm workers in the California provided hope and optimism during the social labor movement. During this presidential election, Obama’s use of this particular phrase provides the same hope and optimism to Americans across the nation in order to overcome struggles and reach the “American Promise.”
In response to statements made by Senator John McCain, Obama takes advantage of the situation and exaggerates his argument to the fullest extent. McCain’s statement about the country being a “nation of whiners” was a huge insult to the American people. Here, Obama makes reference to this quote in order to remind Americans of this insult and enable them to further oppose his political opponent. In support of the working class, Obama responds “These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know,” in a manner that inspires common people to stand up to McCain’s statement. This tactic is rhetorically effective due to the way in which Obama exaggerates one small phrase in order to inspire a feeling of dislike toward McCain to the audience. Also, Obama analyzes McCain’s Republican philosophy in terms in which common people can understand- that everyone is on their own and the government should not provide aid to those who need it. Obama summarizes “Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own,” explaining McCain’s political and economical goals. He keeps this analysis short and simple in order for people to realize and understand the damaging long-term effects of McCain’s philosophy. Not everyone understands politics, therefore Obama shortens McCain’s goals into terms that everyone can understand.
Obama’s opposition to current events under George W. Bush’s presidency are clear, blaming failures on Bush by saying “These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.” In hopes of inspiration for change, Obama exclaims directly to Americans, “Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive…And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: ‘Eight is enough.’” This statement shows U.S. citizens assurance and guarantees of a different presidency and political change. Obama’s confidence and clear arguments are rhetorically effective in providing direction and leadership to Americans as well as gaining the voter’s trust. Obama expresses that, “…through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well,” ensuring everyone of the “American Promise.”

Obama's DNC Speech as Evidence that he can Lead

Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention is a clear and resounding statement that he is a capable and sure leader. His voice and diction are forceful and dominating, and his ideas are structured in a clear, understandable way so that their message cannot be mistaken. This all creates a speech that is effective at enhancing his image as a world leader.

The first thing that stands out about Obama's speech is how strong it sounds. This is a necessary weapon to him right now. One of Obama's detractors' most prominent arguments questions his experience and his ability to command both the nation and its defenses. To fight this image, Obama must convince the voters that he is strong and confident in his ability to lead. With his sharp, clear, commanding voice, it's easy to imagine a powerful leader, someone able to direct armies and steer the country down the most fortuitous path. At one point in the speech he even silences the crowd as it begins to cheer, saying “listen now,” and the crowd quiets and listens. He is at least capable of directing the attention of his audience, and this proves his way of speaking an effective one.

Not only is his voice firm, but so are the words that he uses. Words like 'judgement,' 'courage,' and 'lead' show his confidence, and reflect some of their own meaning back upon him. And words like 'never,' which he uses constantly, create solid definitions, and that solidity gives the speech some fortitude. The speech's commanding strength becomes obvious when these words are put together correctly. “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.” Obama leaves no question as to his ability, and confidence in his ability, to lead our nation.

Part of his message is and always has been change for the better—his entire campaign is branded with the word change—and again his words exemplify his optimism. 'Better,' 'protect,' and 'new' are all very positive words, and words that appear many times in this speech. Even the word 'change' has, in this context, collected some positive connotation. And these words work. Obama's speech truly makes a national fresh start seem not only appealing, but plausible. Again, his confidence lends itself to the speech, making such a strong and challenging idea like changing an entire country sound doable. If such change is possible, then at the very least Obama's speech proves that he is the candidate to accomplish that. He is making it very clear to the voters that if that is what appeals to them, he is the only and obvious choice.

Opponents want him to be considered elitist, as though he discounts the less educated or simpler sects of society. To counter this, Obama has structured his speech to be clear and easily understood by anyone. In order to accomplish this, he takes an idea that he wants to communicate and breaks it into short, declarative sentences that, together, make up a comprehensive argument, yet can be digested separately and manageably. “America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back.” The sentences each hold their own reinforcement of the idea that Obama is try to get across, and together they act like all the strokes of a hammer that it takes to drive an argument into the minds of the voters. This structure also enables Obama to speak with his aforementioned strength by letting him emphasize and infuse each point with the same energy. It is certainly an effective strategy for communicating clearly, and any leader who can do that with his followers cannot be an unproductive one.

Commanding an audience is the earliest indication of a candidate's ability to command a nation. Based on the brilliant, polished, and effective way that Obama gives his speech, he has the potential to be a good leader. This speech is able to be so powerful because it is so strongly given and so easily received. The American people desperately need a brilliant, polished, and effective Commander-in-Chief right now, and Obama's speech shows that he can be that leader.

Opposition within Obama's DNC Speech

His main message is change, but Senator Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention showed everyone that he is patently incapable of such. His speech even manages to create tension within its own bounds. Obama uses old political tactics while preaching to discard them, things like constantly attacking his opponent or promising impossible things to appeal to everyone. His speech even tries to make him into a commander of armies while he says that one of his first priorities is ending a war before its problems have been resolved. This speech has so much tension with its own ideas that it pulls itself inward, imploding into an ineffective farce.

Even while he preaches a new direction for politics, Obama still participates in some of the worst examples of the old. During the speech he condemns his opponent McCain for focusing more on attacking Obama's campaign than actually making a case for his own, right before he launches into a series of vicious attacks against McCain. These attacks are not just counters when he uses phrases like “Senator McCain just doesn't get it.” Obama is a perpetrator of a crime that he has spent his entire campaign railing against. This is a stunning example of hypocrisy, and not one that should be present in a leader of the United States. Because of this, the speech is weakened and ineffectual, as American voters will have a hard time understanding what Obama really stands for, or whether he really stands for anything at all.

The senator is always full of promise for change, but the multitude of empty promises that he spews in this speech are yet another example of the old stale politics that Obama's campaign practices. He promises every concession to everyone, a utopia that cannot realistically be achieved. He simultaneously states that he will lower taxes for the middle class while at the same time giving billions to a universal health care system and promising full benefits to all veterans and schooling for every child. These are mostly good things, but they cannot be put into action along side one another, especially with the shuddering economy that we have today. A speech that promises to take less money and spend more when we are already in a deficit cannot be taken seriously, and is thus ineffective. And beyond opposing itself in that respect, this sort of empty promise is exactly the type of old style politics that Obama denounces for causing our country's current state, and that is yet another way in which the speech defeats itself.

There never was a commander in history who was famous for backing down, but Obama seems to think that he can do just that. He wants the voters to think that he has the experience and the courage to lead not just the nation, but its armies. Yet his only plan to deal with the real, current war is to get out of it. Right after challenging Senator McCain to a debate about his ability to lead the country's defenses, Obama says that he plans to immediately begin troop withdrawal. How can you say that you have the courage to lead a country when you don't even have enough faith in that country's strength to believe that it can finish what it started? Simply pulling out would leave behind chaos in a country that we occupied and would dishearten the whole of America. How will the people if we bring the troops home before they have been able to accomplish anything? How will the families of dead marines feel when the cause they were fighting for is simply abandoned? A speech in which Obama pretends to be a brave and thoughtful leader while promising such an ill-informed mistake should be taken by the American people as a warning against that candidate and his policies.

A hypocritical speech unveils a hypocritical candidate. Senator Obama has become America's darling candidate by promising everything, yet he has no articulated way to do that and maintain the budget. At the same time this speech contains both a promise to command as well as a promise to surrender, and a rant against stagnant politics that takes that exact form. It should be obvious to the American people, as this speech collapses inwards on itself, that a candidate who makes such a mistaken declaration of his policies should not and cannot be the leader of our country.

Hope

No one truly knows how a president will be until they have sat in office for a few years.  No one knows the actions they will take or the decisions they will make.  So, all we can really do is have hope.  Hope that we chose the right president that will stick to his promises.  Hope that the future president will lead us out of these bad economic times.  Hope that the president will do overall good for the American people. John McCain’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention, effectively provided hope that John McCain will be a great president.

Throughout the speech, John McCain was trying to connect with his audience.  In his speech, John McCain would always refer to his audiences as friends.  He was trying to connect with his listeners on a more personal level.  John McCain is using the “common man” political tactic.  He wants his audience and followers to feel like they really are friends.  That he is not greater or better than anyone, but is just a common American.  This political tactic was very useful. Americans want a president that will stick to his word and do what is best for the people.  Americans want a president who they can relate to. He also refers back to his seven children and his lovely wife who loves and cares for.  He wants Americans to know that he too is a family man.  Senator McCain is going to help families that are in need. Later on in his speech John McCain announces specific families that in bad times, but reassures them that help is on the way and each family is of great importance.  I strongly believe John McCain keep to his word and do what is best for the American people. He will fulfill the promises he has and perform the necessary duties to be a great American president.

John McCain’s qualities and characteristics will make him a successful president.  Toward the beginning of his speech, John McCain pays his respects to current president, George W. Bush, and first lady, Linda Bush, for their actions and contributions while in the White House. This sincere act demonstrates John McCain’s respecting and appreciative character.  John McCain also courageously and confidently gives his respects and admirations to Senator Obama.  John McCain recites that although Barrack Obama and himself have totally opposing political views, they are more alike than different in that they are both Americans.  The American people don’t want a president that will only do what is best for his party, but who act and make decisions in the interest of America.  He is a man that wants to unite and boost the American moral in tough times.  John McCain’s greatest characteristic is his fighter’s mentality.  John McCain was a POW and nearly died.  Everyday was a constant fight for survival mentally and physically.  When he broke both of his arms and one of his legs, two fellow American POWs helped feed him in order for him to survive.  I don’t know a tougher fighter than battling for your life.  To tolerate extremely mentally tough times while also enduring physical anguish. This is why John McCain will strive to get America out of its current predicaments.  Just as those POWs saved Senator McCain’s life, he wants to aid Americans that are in hard times.  John McCain realizes the privilege and opportunity that has been bestowed upon him and will rise to the occasion by fighting a greater America.

The use of repetition and listing was very effective in John McCain speech.  Throughout his speech, Senator McCain provides lists and repetition of phrases to strengthen his words.  The lists and repetition built momentum every time he would go on a rant; which then boost the spirits of his audience. The entire speech was a momentum builder up until the end of the speech when the audience burst into celebration. It was a strategic approach because it riled up the audience while also being very persuasive.  The more he recited, the more trust and belief you had in him as America’s future president.

 John McCain’s speech was a light of hope.  His speech gave American people confidence that he would make a great president.  He is a president for the people and a president that will fight for what is right.  He is a respectful man and a loyal man that will stick to his word.  He is a man prepared to face anything thrown at him.  He is a man of hope.

Lies

The American people do not know how to choose a president.  We currently have a “retarded cowboy” (Russell Brand) as our president and we have paid for it.  We are currently in one of the worst economic times in American history, gas prices are at the highest they ever been, and we are in a war.  Who says that the 2008 presidential candidates will do any better? I don’t blame the citizens for choosing “great” presidents, because presidential candidates are full of false hopes and promises.  The whole election process is a gimmick and a show.  It’s basically a game on who can develop the best reputation.  It is no longer about the issues and ideas, but about campaigning and appearance.  John McCain is one such presidential candidate who is putting on a “show.” John McCain’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention is full of unfulfilling promises and a hoax.

            Us as the American people are so gullible.  Of course any candidate is going to give a speech saying everything great about themselves and how they’re going to make America better.  It’s common sense!  Yet, every time we fall for their promises and ideas hoping that one -day they will act on what they say.  We elected President Bush for a second term, now we are counting down the days until he leaves.  John McCain, in his speech, says how he respects and admires Barrack Obama and his supporters.  Of course he is going to say that. It is all a political game to raise his reputation.  Yet, most Americans are probably saying what a respecting character he has.  He also respectably thanks George and Linda Bush for their efforts.  Efforts? What did President Bush do that was memorable besides creating Patriot’s Day? McCain is probably like every other American in their mind saying “Get this ‘retarded cowboy’ out of here.”  A presidential candidate can say whatever seems pleasing to the American people, because the masses are asses.

            John McCain later goes on in his speech talking about his time as a POW and how he is a better because of it.  Once again trying to build up his character.  I have full respect for POWs, but it was total reach out for sympathy votes.  He starts talking about how both of his arms and one of his legs were broken and how other POWs fed him and basically saved his life.  He could of just talked about how it made him a fighter and built his character.  John McCain also talks about his wife and kids. He wants America to know he is a family man. That is understood. What I didn’t understand was why he continuously rambled on about his wife always being there for him and that she is his better half. Once again trying to snag those sympathy votes and developing that reputation.  I guess every vote counts right? Better to get votes reciting your autobiography rather than talking about those lame issues.  America’s economy is not failing or anything. 

            John McCain goes on annoying streaks reciting a laundry list of ideal and concepts.  He first goes on saying everything he believes in.  Well of course he says all the major concepts of the Republican platform. After saying how much he respects Obama, he then bashes Obama completely.  He lists all the great things he will do for America, followed by cheers, then would say all the horrible things Obama is going to do, followed by booing.  That reputation is surely a huge part in becoming president.  They obviously have different views, but who has the better ideas? It is just common sense that everything he is going to say is going to be right sided.  His lastly rambles on about all the things he’s going to fight for.  I respect this last part because he does talk about this issues and what he is going to do about them.  What I didn’t like was how he repeatedly recited the phrase “I am going to fight for….” over and over again.  What John McCain didn’t do was say anything negative about himself.  It almost makes him see unreal and too perfect.  That he is going to come into office and make America a paradise once more.  I feel that when a president says something negative about themselves it humanizes them. Thus, I am more likely to trust in what they are saying and promising. 

            Before believing into the speech, consider the past.  Did president Bush do everything he promised?  John McCain won’t be any different. It is a total scheme, to give Americans hope for a better future.  Any person with a lot of money can be nominated by their party and stand up their talking about how great they are, what great thing they can do for American, and how their life makes them a suitable candidate. I say all politicians are liars to some degree, so go with the candidates who shares common ideals with you.  You are never going to get a candidate that is going to fulfill all their promises.  John McCain speech is a ramble of lies and deceit.

            

Trusting vs. Distrusting Obama

Cynical, distrusting:

A large crowd cheers in approval, raising identical signs reading "change" in bold letters. Proudly standing behind a podium, Barrack Obama is ready to speak to the thousands of democrats and converted republicans attending this convention. Although Obama's delivery of his speech raised much applause and unified agreement from the crowd, I have found that I am not swayed by his form, choice of words, and points he has made.

Firstly, the manner in which he attacks his opponent, McCain by pointing out his flaws suggests that Obama's arguments are not strong enough alone and need the support of negative comments to lift his own status up. Furthermore, some of his comments are contradicting. For example, Obama states "So I've got news for you, John McCain. We put our country first," as a remark demonstrating how patriotic the United States is and how the men and women who have gone to war were both Democrat and Republican. This, as noble and grandiose as it sounds, largely contradicts itself; Obama is directly attacking someone from an opposing party as he makes this statement. He's making it seem like we should flat out drop having separate parties and work together as a team. This is completely unrealistic and very unlikely to ever occur in the world of politics.

Obama's string of uplifting, inspiring messages are wonderful sounding, however highly improbable. His entire speech is comprised of uplifting comments such as "I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it," or "Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain." As great sounding as these two sentences are, they aren't saying much. He claims he's seen this change take place today when soldiers re-enlist after losing a limb or in the "good neighbor that takes a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise". It is funny how he turns two horrible situations, the war and Hurricane Katrina, into wonderful, beautiful moments of change. Frankly, I hope this new world of change doesn't have injured soldier's re-enlisting. I find that to be a horrible decision that,as noble as it sounds, would not do the country any real good. Secondly, I sure would hope that a neighbor would take in someone who lost everything. I feel that this would be expected in such a terrible situation, and the fact that Obama is pointing it out as a form of "change" worries me for our country.

The American spirit that has pushed us forward "when the path [was] uncertain" is what has landed us in nearly an eight year war. We are too prideful and too full of "American spirit" to return without being called the hero for stopping the corruption in Iraq. Ironically, Iraq is in a much worst shape today. The fact that Obama is praising this American spirit says that his presidency could in fact look similar to Bush's, although he argues strongly that it won't.

At the end of his speech, Obama states "America, we cannot turn back. […] At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future." What does that even mean? How can we not continue into the future? The future is the future and it will happen regardless of whether we march into it or not.

Obama claims that he will invest $150 billion into the development of alternative fuels which will supposed raise five million new jobs in the process. As great as it is that he wants to solve the solution of our dependency of oil, this is going to be a very costly experiment and there's no guarantee that it will even successfully bring about practical forms of fuel that work. It will most likely be years before we develop affordable, useful alternative fuels. The money and time spent during these years, on top of expenses of the war and billions of dollars of debt to repay is going to leave our economy greatly suffering. The long-term outcome might be that the U.S becomes less dependant on oil; however, the short-term result is higher gas prices, higher taxes, and an overall poor economy for the following few years.

Overall, Obama is a man of great promise and hope, but also a man of unrealistic proposals. To entirely trust that he can carry through all of his suggestions and bring about a supposed "change" is very risky. He is going to greatly disappoint millions of people if he is not able to stick to his word. He has given possibly a large amount of hope to America through his beautifully crafted phrases,; however, if America wants to be realistic, it had better be careful about believing Obama's every word.


Optimistic, Trusting:

Barrack Obama appears to be a man of his word. His speech delivered at the convention clearly depicts the fact that he is knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and tactful about the prodecures that the United States must go through to undergo "change".

The following statement depicts his realistic form of the specific uses of the Nation's finances. "Many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime […] I will go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." The final sentence in the previous quote makes a strong point: the country cannot indeed prodeed to use its money in similar ways of the past because we are no longer in the past. The needs of our country differ greatly from the needs of years past.

Furthermore, Obama instills and reminds the public of what its responsibility is, which shows that he wants to work as a collective force. He gives notion that the public is equally as important as he is in aiding the generation of a large-scale "change". "We must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility. […] We must admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need." Reminding the public that it is up to it to take action is a crucial point it forwarding the well-being of society. Although it takes a great president to help aid the country to move in such a direction, it is up to the people to help fully execute this movement by taking it upon themselves to inspire action. He phrases this concept well, which convinces me that he has well thought out this subject and is an intelligent indivual that fully understands the dynamics of teamwork along with leadership.

Furthermore, Obama's modesty and way of putting the importance on "you" to help make a change, helps the public greatly relate to him and immediately feel apart of his procedures. "I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington. But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you." He essentially puts himself as an equal to the rest of the public through this previous quote. This is most likely the reason why he appears so likeable and trustworthy. Although one might argue that this could just be a cruel tactic to get the public's affection, one must also take into account the possibility that he speaks from truth. If he is in fact speaking truthfully, this statement says much about his character and would be a great inspiration and role-model to our country.

Speaking realistically, Obama openly admits that the government can not possibly find a solution to every problem. "Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology." This tactic of speaking frankly and truthfully, makes it more believable that he his policies will in fact become reality. Furthermore, he makes short, important statements such as "America, now is not the time for small plans" which really drive the point home that he will be a man of great "change" to the United States. This form of speaking gives this time period a sense of great importance and leads one to believe that his manner of thinking is one that will lead to big changes and hopefully big improvement.

Aside from the content of his speech, Obama's manner in which he expresses his thoughts is both inspiring and thought provoking. Although one could argue that his manner of speaking is borderline fantasy-like and unreal sounding, the excitement and passsion he brings forth through his words is undoubtedly inspirational. Frankly, this is what the country needs. Even if Obama does not go forth with all of his plans, the inspiration and drive that he will have instilled will help push forward Americans to strive for the best and work diligently as a team. That in itself will be a great accomplishment and improvement for the United States. The following few phrases embodies the passion behind Obama words. "What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you. For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. […] Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."

Overall, Obama represents a fresh and truthful outlook for the future. By electing him we are instilling hope into the United States and although Obama's policies may not be entirely realistic, his motive and passion he drives forward will have a lasting impact on the nation. By trusting him, we are infact trusting ourselves - for we too are part of this so called "change". Although Obama may not be the perfect candidate, he is a close as it gets in this election to representing hope for the future of the United States.

Promises, fallacies, and that woman in Wyoming who...

Obama’s campaign has relied heavily on a tagline for change. If “change” means making a series of almost unachievable promises, then his speech to the Democratic National Convention overwhelmingly succeeds. Obama makes borderline ridiculous promises to cut taxes for 95% of working families, while setting broad general goals such as recruiting “an army” of teachers and very specific goals such as allocating 150 billion dollars for investment in clean technology. This obvious contradiction could undermine his credibility to part of the 40 million viewers who may not already be sold on this change. But Obama’s promises do not stop there. Many will probably remember for years to come his promise to end America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years. Because of this bold statement, history will recall this speech as that one where Obama made a shocking Joe Namath style prediction, or became that kid in the school election who promises fruit punch drinking fountains.

            Specific policies aside, Obama litters his speech with logical fallacies and blatant miscues in logic. While shamelessly bashing his opponent, Obama embraces the causation fallacy in full force, even if he did say later in his speech that this type of dirty politics had to be done away with. The ad hoc is most apparent when Obama makes the association between the increase of America’s import of oil and McCain’s tenure in office. He states that America has tripled its import of oil since McCain took office, ignoring the countless subtle nuances that could be responsible for such an increase.  Using that logic, any Democratic congressman, senator, or president who was in office in the last 30 years is equally culpable. Ah, and then there is the guilt by association. Obama wastes no opportunity to connect the decision making of McCain and Bush, who he knows is unpopular, in any way possible. But how could Obama take this tactful approach one step further? He immediately resorts to misleading numbers. He says that McCain agrees with Bush “90% of the time”. Obama completely ignores the fact that this number is extremely misleading, chiefly because there are countless inconsequential bills that pass through Congress that leave very little room for disagreement. Even Obama’s voting record agrees with Bush’s position 40% of the time. But overlooking this, Obama embellishes the misleading statistic by stating quite proudly that he was unwilling to accept a 10% chance on change as if it were somehow possible to quantify the probability of change and that this one statistic would be its only measure.

            Obama made it clear that the perfect way to compliment this misuse of facts was to patronize his largely supportive audience in the most direct possible manner. Obama told countless anecdotal stories of steel workers in Chicago who were unemployed after the plant closed. He spoke of proud autoworkers in Michigan who kept working even after they found out that their factory was going to close. He sympathizes with the military families sending their children away for their fourth tour of duty and the forgotten veterans sleeping in the streets. He talks about the worker in Indiana who told his family in tears that he felt like a failure because his job had been shipped to China as well as workers cutting back hours so that their friends don’t lose their jobs. He doesn’t forget about the hardworking Amtrak train conductors or a woman in Ohio one illness away from disaster. He calls on us to help the citizens drowning before our eyes, the waitress who wants to take the day off to look after her sick kid without losing her job, and finally soldiers who want to reenlist even after losing their limbs. The frequency of these anecdotal stories made me realize that I was really….. really…. really sick of anecdotal stories.  This strategy was so already worn out and obviously political when Al Gore overused it in the 2000 election, that it’s surprising to see Obama use this strategy with such dedication. We get it Barack.  You can “relate” to us. He was practically adlibbing them around story five or six. The prompter might as well have said, “I’m talking about the [blue-collar occupation] in [rural area or impoverished metropolitan] who [heart-wrenching story].”

            But why does Obama use such questionable logic and lowbrow campaign strategies. Is it because he’s stupid? No. It’s because he thinks that you’re stupid. He includes a handful of remarks and references that are actually rather intelligent. These include references to the story of Cain and Able when Obama says “I am my Brothers keeper,” an allusion to Einstein when he makes a remark about trying the same things and expecting different results, and his commentary on the need to find a middle ground in bi-partisan politics.  But these intelligent remarks are a scarcity in Obama’s speech. Instead he assumes we are too ignorant to identify with his true level of intelligence, and instead appeals to the lowest common denominator.

            So, as long as senator Obama does not respect the intellect of the American people, expect to hear more promises so outrageous that the inability to provide them will hopefully be overlooked. Expect Obama to bank on the success of Democratic presidents like Clinton, Roosevelt, and Kennedy while mysteriously overlooking other democratic presidents such as Jimmy Carty. And expect constant reminder that McCain is in cahoots with Bush, and that he is solely responsible for the increase in oil consumption. If Obama’s speech is indicative of the type of change that he is going to bring to the Whitehouse, it is clear that we are about to see the same type of politics we have seen for the last two centuries. Now, get back to your second job at the sawmill in northern Iowa so that you can pay for your crippled child’s piano lessons.

Baraquafina

Sometimes we make decisions, not because they make sense, but because they seem right. One example of this in modern society is when the people buy bottled water. Forget that tap water is perfectly safe. People are wiling to invest their hard earned dollars on something that they can get for free. The reason for this is simple. In 350 BC, Aristotle outlined the three central components that he found most important to being persuasive. The ideas that he outlined are known as logos, ethos, and pathos. Even though Aristotle solidified these concepts thousands of years ago, they are still applicable in almost all modern forms of persuasion from bottled water to speeches in the race for the White House. As a result, Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention was successful largely because of his mastery of these three principles.

            The first of these principles, logos, is to appeal to the audience through the use of logic. Even though it is considered by some experts in the field of speech to be the least important element of persuasion, it cannot be completely ignored. Barack Obama, bearing this in mind, made sure to include at least some elements of his speech that were airtight on a logical level, or at least appeared to be airtight. The most convincing examples of logic that he used in his speech were in regards to finding a middle ground in bipartisan politics. He says that “we may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.” Because he is addressing an audience that is largely unfamiliar with every subtle nuance present in the countless issues that face politicians, such general statements of logic are all that are needed. Although this component needs to be present somewhere in the speech, it is far from the most important.

        Aristotle’s next component of rhetoric, ethos, is significantly more important. This encompasses the speaker’s ethical appeal, character, or credibility. Even though standing before ten of thousands of fanatical supporters does much to bolster Obama’s credibility and character, he clearly fine-tunes his speeches to take this element one step further. He showed political tact by acknowledging his lack of inexperience, a common criticism of his ethos, and using it in such a way that he is now separated for the corruption and the public’s typical negative view of politics. He also emphasizes the connection between himself and the Democratic Party, and then between the Democratic Party and presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. This, by extension, bolsters his character because these two are largely considered by both Democrats and Republicans to be successful presidents. He also boosts his relative ethos by fervently attacking that of John McCain. He makes heavy correlations between McCain and George Bush, a figure considered by much of the public to be of poor character. However, he makes sure to disguise such attacks ahead of time by praising McCain’s military service to the country.

            However, the tool that Obama utilized most effective in his speech was Aristotle’s third and most important element in the art of persuasion. Pathos is the speaker’s ability to appeal to the audience’s emotions.  Even though they may have eventually been overdone, Obama included the use of anecdotal stories that show that he can relate to the plight of everyday Americans. These stories elicit anything from heart-wrenching sorrow for laid off factory workers to absolute furry at the notion of jobs being sent to China. Obama appeals to the audience’s love of family when he mentions the promise that he makes to his daughter’s when he tucks them in at night yet incites suspicion of McCain for the notion of shipping jobs to China. Obama was extremely effective in recognizing that few things are more powerful in influencing people’s decisions than their emotions. People were not logically convinced to spontaneously applaud during his speech; they simple were overcome by emotion or “felt” that it was appropriate.

            The principles of logos, ethos, and pathos are powerful tools of persuasion that Obama used effectively throughout his entire speech. The same tools are the same reason that Americans are willing to spend money on bottled water, even though they can get that water for free. They ignore this lapse in logic and buy them because the bottles’ ethos is well represented by use of well-established names. Their pathos is supported by use of vivid pictures depicting fresh springs and frosty mountains. Obama, similarly uses these three elements of persuasion by ignoring the logical issues that most Americans are actually not that familiar with, and instead focusing on the things that make him look credible and that move them emotionally. The Senator is incredibly successful at utilizing the fact that numbers are not important when a crowd is angry with his opponent, and believes that he is someone of outstanding character. Much like the genius marketing campaign that convinced Americans that they needed to pay a dollar for free water, Obama’s speech ensures that among his thirsty audience of millions, he is the purchase that just “feels” right.

 

Palin Power

Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention was a grand slam for the Republican Party.  Not only was it an extremely well written speech, both clear and concise, it covered some extremely important questions that let the world know that Sarah Palin is a special candidate, one who is more than qualified for the job.  Everything about Palin, from her strong presence to what she represents as a person is a perfect match for McCain and the Republican party.  She is the perfect complement to McCain because in being a woman she represents something that McCain cannot.  The way Palin came off is so much different then the typical politician.  Her character is so strong that everything she says is extremely believable and I have faith that she will stay true to the ideologies she pledged to uphold during her speech.

 It is impossible to question the validity of Palin’s comments on some political issues.  Despite the fact that she has a son in the military, she remains an advocate of finishing the war in Iraq, a loud and clear statement regarding her beliefs.  Palin also led by example in her decision to keep her newborn baby boy after learning of his Down syndrome condition.  She could have chosen to get an abortion and nobody would have held it against her, but she stayed true to her pro-life beliefs.  A high caliber candidate like Palin who clearly leads by example, and not just through words, is a leader we can trust.

Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for a short time now, and she was relatively unknown on the political spectrum before being named Republican Vice Presidential Candidate.  For many people, Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was the first time seeing her speak publicly.  Naturally, people were curious as to the type of person Palin is.  The fact that she is a woman and relatively inexperienced makes her an even more surprising and interesting choice for Vice President.  For those Democrats who are quick to point this out as a fault, just look at Ronald Regan and FDR.  Ronald Regan was Governor of California before being elected President of the United States, and Sarah Palin has MORE political experience now then Regan had when he was elected President.  Regan went on to enjoy not only two successful terms in the Whitehouse, but one of the highest approval ratings for any President in the history of the United States. Regan also successfully dealt with the Soviet-threat during the Cold War, which is further proof that Palin has enough experience to handle anything Putin throws our way.  Furthermore, if you think Palin does not have enough experience then you are saying something about the Democratic Nominee Barack Obama, because Palin has more experience than he does. 

All of Palin’s polcies and rationale made perfect sense.  Even when she was bashing Obama, which she spent plenty of time doing, everything she said made you wonder why anyone would want to vote for him.  Although she spent a long time highlighting a few of Obama’s many faults, it was time well spent.  She pointed out Barack’s campaign flaws in a way that was constructive to the McCain campaign, proving that McCain is the best man for the United States Presidency.    She presented her personal job experience in a fashion that was easy to listen to and revealed a plethora of information regarding the quality of her character.  She made it clear that she is not out to please the critics who believe that a Vice Presidential candidate must be, “An established member of the Washington Elite.” She went on to state that her sole purpose of going to Washington is, “To serve the people of this great country (The United States of America).”

 Next, Palin talked about an important issue facing this great country, the oil and energy industries.  The current world oil situation is a very sensitive and dangerous issue.  Russia invaded Georgia in attempt to gain control of a crucial oil pipeline.  By gaining control of world’s energy resources, they would control a very powerful thing.  It is a new and different type of warfare that is pretty sneaky, but Russia is definitely on the move.  Then there is Iran, which controls one fifth of the world’s oil, who could choose to stop selling oil at any time, and that would be very bad for the United States.  It is for all of these reasons that it is especially important in today’s world that we, the United States of America, be independent from foreign oil supply.  An important step in achieving this goal of energy independence is to begin drilling in Alaska.  Palin made it clear that she and McCain realize the importance of this step, unlike Obama.  Palin also acknowledged that she knows this is not the entire solution, recognizing the need to develop alternative energy sources as an important step during our countries’ road to energy independence.

The fact that she made Obama look bad by summarizing his policies helped the Republican cause even more.  She did a great job of discrediting Obama and portraying him as a candidate who we cannot afford to have elected.  One example of how she did this was by saying, “that our opponent wants to pull out of the Middle East when victory is in sight.” Also, she highlighted the fact that Obama wants to raise taxes when taxes are already too high, and Obama wants to make government bigger when it is already too big.  Electing Obama would lead to a weaker America, something that America cannot afford with multiple dangerous foreign countries that definitely do not have our best interests in mind.

The Palin Problem

Everything about John McCain’s vice president, Sarah Palin, seems like a perfect fit for the Republican ticket, but the opposite is true for the United States of America.  Part of the McCain campaign’s slogan is, “Country first,” however, by nominating Sarah Palin as vice presidential candidate, he did his country a disservice.  Palin may be the perfect Republican image, but when you look behind the strong hockey mom, you will see that her lack of experience makes the thought of Sarah Palin as President a scary one.

The possibility of Palin becoming President of the United States is an extremely real possibility, given McCain’s age.  While she may be a nice lady, that does not exactly qualify her for the position.  Palin is a former sportscaster, who was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska city council from 1996 to 2002 and elected mayor from 1996 to 2002.  Since 2006, she has held the position of Governor of Alaska.  This lack of experience will definitely hurt our country if she ever becomes President.  In fact, the recent news on Palin is that she has been declining questions from reporters to conceal her lack of knowledge and experience on issues such as foreign policy. 

She definitely did not help her reputation for lack of experience in her speech at the Republican Convention.  Her speech basically consisted of talking about McCain, talking about her family, talking about her limited job experience, and trash talking Obama.  The fact that she spent the more time trash talking Obama than any other of the previously listed topics sends a message in itself.  Instead of focusing on what she plans to do to improve our country, she chose to further the smear campaign against Obama.  The reason she did this is because she has nothing to useful to contribute other than to smile and wave for the cameras.

She spent approximately fifteen minutes bashing Obama, which was about ten minutes longer than she spent on any other topic.  This is not the kind of person who should be in the White House.  The next President must be able to stand up to the challenges of this dangerous world.  Even though she can see Russia from her house, I doubt Palin has what it takes to stand up to Russia’s crazy leader Putin.  Russia is definitely a potential threat,  and proof of this is in their recent invasion of Georgia, an attempt to gain control of a crucial oil pipeline.  Also, there is the issue of the War in the Middle East, and all of the oil drama surrounding it.  Will Muslim countries have respect for a country whose leader is a woman?  This is doubtful, considering the role of a woman in Muslim societies.  They are basically treated as property.  As long as our country is dependent on oil from the Middle East, we definitely cannot risk having a woman as President of the United States.

Former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, may have summed up the Palin family appeal best in his recent comments.  “ I get why she’s hot out there-why she’s doing well. You know, people look at her and they say-all those kids.  Something happens in everybody’s family.”  When Palin introduced her family at the Convention, it was easy to see why Palin is such a likeable candidate.  Her oldest son, Track, is an active member of the Marines, and is currently in Iraq.  Then there is her seventeen year old daughter, Bristol, who is keeping her unborn baby with eighteen year old boyfriend.  The fact that she and her boyfriend have chosen to marry each other and keep the baby is a very noble decision, and the way the two presented themselves at the Convention with all smiles made them a respectable and likeable couple.  Finally, there was Sarah and her husband Todd’s decision to keep their unborn baby after learning of his Down syndrome condition.  The way Sarah proudly described her, “ Perfectly beautiful baby boy,” named Trig, and the lovingness with which Todd held him was a very heartfelt moment.  Even the names of Palin’s five children, Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig, contribute to her image of a strong woman who is not afraid to be different.  

This image is obviously a very attractive one to the American people. I mean, how can you not like Sarah Palin after watching that speech at the Republican Convention?  The answer to that question is you cannot help but like her.  However, we are talking about the possible future President of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world.  If it was a vote for the high school prom queen, then things would be different, however it is not, and we as a nation cannot afford to have anything less than a fully capable leader in office, something that Sarah Palin certainly is not.

Youthful Republican vs Liberal Democrat

Youthful Republican

While viewing John McCain’s Acceptance Speech, I was struck by several facets. He presented himself as strong and patriotic. He used personal stories to give the nation a feeling of security and refuge if he were to be our President. Overall, I thought his speech was informative and intriguing.

When first observing Senator McCain’s speech, I thought that he presented himself in a professional manner. I could tell that he was a great communicator with his audience and knew how to respond to them. He presented a great amount of love and dignity for his country which was apparent throughout his speech. One thing that irritated me throughout the speech was when he would talk over the audience while they were applauding. I found his to be distracting and improper.

Senator McCain had a great way of putting things so that they sounded convincing. Senator McCain stated in his speech, “I won’t you down!” This gives us a sense of safety and leads the American public to feel that he will protect us as our President. Throughout his speech, he talked in generalities rather than realities. He used these generalities to make the public excited and comfortable about his beliefs. Senator McCain likes to talk “bigger than life”, because it allows the people to think big and not have to worry about the little things. He gives us hope that our small problems now do not have to be apparent once he is elected.

It is self-contradictory that Senator McCain stated “I wasn’t my own man, I was my country!” We all know that a man must be his own man before he helps others and his country. From a Christian point-of-view, a person must love themselves before they can love others. Our American society is very religious. We are conducive to Senator McCain’s ideal image and presentation. Senator McCain uses code words, such as “family values”, to prove to the American people that he will stand to religious norms. Two tactics Senator McCain uses during his speech are the evocation of patriotism and fear. Everyone loves a patriot because they stand proud of their country. Senator McCain constantly brings up his past because it evokes the public to be “proud to be an American”. Everyone knows about the terrible torture he suffered in a Vietnamese prison. McCain suffered for his country and was a brave man. This suffering proves to his country that he was a man of character. The pride he feels for serving his ordeal manifests itself in his candidacy. Also, Senator McCain uses fear to keep people in control. He uses fear as a technique because he knows when people are scared; they are more amenable to strong leadership. Therefore, voting for Senator McCain because he is a strong commander and he suffered torture makes people feel secure and patriotic.

During Senator McCain’s Acceptance Speech, he used both physical gestures and diction to excite the audience. Senator McCain used diction to fixate on certain words and his facial expressions emphasized those words he felt were most important. He would raise his voice to arouse his audience. McCain occasionally stumbled over some words but was able to recover quickly.

There were several gestures that I could identify during his speech. He not only looks straight at the camera, but to his viewers. This is an important tactic to address because it shows the public that he can talk to the camera but to the people, as well. Senator McCain moves around the platform so that everyone can see that he is talking to them as an individual and as a country. During his presentation, he often uses comforting and uplifting language. When he looks at the audience he says “My friends”, as if he is talking to you in your family room.

When observing his physical gestures, I noticed that he had a difficult time moving his arms. He seemed to show his enthusiasm by moving his arms but it looked like he had to struggle and it was not a natural movement for him. This became obvious when he would raise his hands awkwardly, as if in pain, when he spoke of his vision for the future of America. This obviously is not the type of feeling he wanted to come across. The awkwardness was apparent in that section of the video. On the contrary, there were moments when he seemed sincere and unrehearsed in his movements. For example: he placed his hand on his heart when he talked about our country. This brought about a feeling of security and honestly.

People are passionate about Senator McCain because everyone recalls the suffering he was put through during his imprisonment. Christians can relate his suffering to that of Jesus. Jesus suffered for his people just as McCain did for his country. Senator McCain constantly reminds us of his war stories as a tactic to present himself as experienced and ready to be our Commander- In- Chief. To me, this proves that Senator McCain would be a good President because he knows how suffering affects people and he wants to alleviate it. His experience is a powerful tool because it shows the public that if he can endure a Vietnamese prison, he can endure anything.

While viewing the people’s reactions to the candidate’s speech, I realized that they love him because he wants to make a change. Senator McCain wants to make a difference as a President and help others. He wants to alter a variety of things for the betterment of his people and country. Senator McCain presents enthusiasm in his speech to grab the audience’s attention. He provokes an admirable amount of love, pride, and dedication for his country throughout his presentation. For the most part he did a salient job presenting himself to the people of America.


Liberal Democrat

Watching Senator John McCain’s acceptance speech impressed me in some ways, but confirmed the reasons why I would not support his candidacy. I do have to agree that he had a good presentation, but he could not convince me to vote for him. Overall there was too much heat and not enough light.

When I reviewed Senator McCain’s speech I thought that he covered everything in a competent manner. He distinguished points that he needed to make his supporters pleased. I agree that Senator McCain speaks to his base in a positive manner; however the same points can turn off liberals and independents. Senator McCain also had a tendency to talk over his audience. I thought that he appeared to be arrogant and discourteous. Senator McCain seemed to speak only about positive aspects rather than state the errors in our government. He is afraid to take any responsibility for his party’s mismanagement of government for the last eight years. This is cowardly and not a good sign of a good leader.

Senator McCain preached to his supporter’s about information they would want to hear and they liked it. When Senator McCain contradicted himself, it not only sounded erroneous but it contradicts points in his previous speeches. This makes the audience wonder where Senator McCain’s beliefs and values lie. McCain’s speech was nuanced to remind conservatives that he believes in their ideas; but it seemed like pandering to his political base. When McCain stated in his speech, “I wasn’t my own man, I was my country”, I believe that it sounded slightly bombastic and phony. On several issues mentioned in Senator McCain’s acceptance speech, he magically changed his views. In his last campaign, Senator McCain was against President Bush’s tax cuts and now he wants them. Previously, Senator McCain stood up against torture and now he says it is okay. Such “flip-flops” seemed to be a sign of a lack of strength.

Some of Senator McCain’s gestures looked somewhat practiced and stiff. When McCain looked at the camera, it didn’t seem natural. He would look as if he was being directed, as if he had to look at the camera to remind his audience that he knew they were there. Even though he has an excuse for his gestures from his torture incident, it looked as if he was “made for T.V.” Senator McCain spoke sincerely, yet it still looked like he was “role-playing.”

Also McCain’s tone of voice lets him down. He could sound “preachy” at some points and his voice strident on occasion. Senator McCain’s diction was short and to the point which makes his speech easy to understand, but this could sound childish and immature. A true statesman is not afraid of language and uses more precise terms.

Supporters of Senator McCain are whipped up by his references to country, God, and flag. People know his story and respect it. When a wounded combatant like himself speaks to America, people become emotional. But military service does not equate a good leader in civilian government. In our system civilian control of the military is paramount.

Liberals can identify Senator McCain fooling the political base by using his service as being patriotic. Only veterans can be patriotic. People who have not served in the military are not a patriot. Statements such as these irritate Democrats and liberals. Senator McCain is promoting his service as a political ploy. He implies that the other side is unpatriotic.

Another part of his speech that makes liberals barmy are the gratuitous references he states about family values and God. As if God were a Republican and Democrats did not love their families.