George Denis Patrick Carlin, one of the greatest political comedians of all time has been not only doing political comedy acts for years, but writing and speaking about this topic for many years as well. In his article “I’m Divorced From It Now” Carlin argues his point as to why he has lost hope in his fellows American’s and “divorced” himself from society. Carlin was a man of absolute faith, absolute patriotism, but as he aged and continued his studies on politics and religion, he slowly lost what he used to have and his views changed. His goal as a comedian was not only to bring laughter to the everyday person in his audience, but it was also to bring awareness to the current topics of the world that obviously unnoticed. This was not
The main character in this story is a Jewish girl named Alicia. When the book
David Horowitz wrote the book “Radical Son,” as an autobiography narrating his political and spiritual growth. The author gives the experience of his political journey, which he regards as generational odyssey. The book’s title presents the reader with a chance to imagine what to expect from the book. The title provides a calculatedly designed account of the book’s content. Through the author’s political and religious journey, he has grown to become radical. The journey to where he stands today has been tedious and challenging. The paper presents a review of the book “Radical Son” by David Horowitz. Initially, a summary of the book is provided. Furthermore, the paper highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the book from a personal approach. The essay culminates by providing the lessons learned from the book.
Rick Perlstein argues over whether "Nixonland", a country at war with itself, still resides in the heart of America. The book took a in depth look at Nixon’s political career from the beginning up to the outcome of the 1972 election, as well as how America’s political scene went from perceived consensus in the LBJ era to the bitterly divided right versus left, also known as the red state/blue state split. Perlstein’s argument is that we are still living in Nixonland. “Nixonland” is a study of the consensus, it isn’t just about Nixon, he isn’t the protagonist of Nixonland although it does include his rise and fall; instead, the protagonist of Nixonland is the American voter who found themselves voting Democrat in 1964 and then Republican in 1972 for the same reasons. This book covers the American political and cultural terrain from LBJ’s liberal landslide in 1964, through Nixon’s comeback in 1968, and land...
In chapter one, Fiorina begins with a powerful quote from Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, “There is a religious war…a cultural war as critical to the…nation…as the cold war…for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina et al. 1). Using several other quotes, he illustrates the belief that the nation is torn between personal morals and extreme conservative notions. He then states his belief that these sentiments are complete nonsense, and exaggerations. There is no culture war according to Fiorina, no war for the soul of America. Describing the culture war as a myth caused by lack of information, misrepresentation of facts by activists, and selective media coverage. He suggests that Americans are essentially bystanders avoiding the cross fire between the left and right wing activists. Furthermore, he contrasts that it is the American choices that are polarized due to politicians, thus creating the appearance of a politically polarized society. Finally, he concludes the first chapter by outlining his argument in the following chapters. Fiorina does an exceptional job hooking the reader with his first chapter, the quotes and various examples of how America is portrayed as polarized are effective in swaying the audience to agree and then he shocks the reader by debunking all previous statements with his personal beliefs and outline for how he plans to prove his argument.
Paul Krugman’s humorous rhetoric both entertains and informs the reader towards America’s consistent uneducated assumptions of other countries. He opens with a critical approach of the Republican Candidate, Jeb Bush and his comment about French work weeks. Krugman immediately shot down Bush’s argument and referred him as “french toast”, in order to describe the weight of the outcome on his campaign in a joking manner. He inserts an interjection and utilizes common speech to convey straight messages about his possible political standing in the presidential race and elaborates on how groundless his statements were about the French work ethic. Krugman’s sour critique then moves onto yet another Republican, Ben Carson. Although there weren’t any
Both works provide valuable insight into the political atmosphere of American society, but vary greatly in their intended message, usage of persuasive method, projected audience, and choice of tone. One can see resemblance, however, in the fact that the authors of both articles strive to spark a reaction in their readers and encourage change. In that regard, while Hedges’
In the late1960’s American politics were shifting at a National level with liberalism being less supported as its politics were perceived as flawed, both by people on the left who thought that liberalism was not as effective as more radical political enterprises and by conservatives who believed that liberal politics were ostensibly crippling the American economy.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
The United States was a country founded on the basis of freedom. Imagine living in a nation in which The First Amendment did not exist. Where there was not freedom of speech or press where censorship reigned with a king. This picture is that of France for the entirety of the nineteenth century. During this era, Honoré Daumier was a renowned political and social cartoonist. The King and his police persecuted the lithographer Daumier, among numerous other French artists, for his political activism, including jail time and heavy fines. Honoré Daumier was a master of political and social critique. Looking at an overview of his commentaries there appear strong parallels that can be drawn to current American politics. Daumier uses a range of stylistic choices to promote critiques that are multi-dimensional which contain various overt and more subtle satires, meanings, and messages. Learning from and referencing Daumier, I created a political cartoon that mimics his style.
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage, 1989.
Thayer, G. (1967). The Father Shores of Politics: The American Political Fringe Today . New York: Simon and Schuster.
Following the American Revolution, Americans faced an intellectual crisis. For although, as a nation, America was now separated from England and Europe not only by an entire ocean, but also politically, America had failed to declare a sort of cultural independence from Europe. That is, until the ideas and writings of Ralph Waldo Emmerson. In his writings, he advocated the creation of new knowledge, creating less of a reliance on the ideas of the past, and also advocated ideas on the importance of personal identity in spite of society. This idea on individuality was elaborated on in his work “Self-Reliance”, which expresses the idea that the only true good a person can do, is the good that is within their constitution and that society attempts to erode the individuality of its members. In opposition to this idea, Kenneth Harris seeks to analyze the dissonance between the idealism of Emmerson, with the unidealistic self-interestedness of the term and philosophy itself.
The presidential debate was an event where most of the population not only of United Stated of America but the whole world was waiting anxiously for. The first of the three presidential debates was developed in Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. The first debate drew a record of the audience being one of the most watched debated in the history of United States of America. Some people watched the debate support and cheer one of the candidates, other to clarify to whom they should vote for. In this rhetorical analysis, the purpose is to establish some examples of ethos, logos, and pathos of each on the candidates.
Cooper, Barry, Allan Kornberg and William Mishler. The Resurgence of Conservatism in Anglo-American Democracies. Durham: Duke University Press, 1988. Print.
He utilizes the fact that the White House has gone through nearly eight years of Democratic occupancy to comment on the conduct of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and use them as a reason for a Republican overhaul. He establishes that he is “proudly not a politician” (56:00) under the notion of its negative connotations. After mentioning the media’s selective focus (3:53, 14:34) and the government’s inactivity (3:53, 46:04, 55:39), the audience is more convinced by his ‘expose’. This results in distrust in the current government and more support for Donald Trump, despite his lack in political background. With this trustworthy persona, he mocks the Democratic platform. He draws attention away from issues like global warming (14:34) and political correctness (27:29) as those topics do not directly concern nor benefit the working class. When people see that the opponent has no regard for their interests, they then put their efforts into supporting Trump.