Thursday night the Phillips Center for Performing Arts hosted a very special guest appearance by the Reforms Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. In the year of presidential elections the two popular candidates George Bush and Al Gore really don’t lash out on each other, which makes this years debates boring and long. Pat Buchanan is refreshing to the sense he doesn’t care what he says about the other candidates. Pat Buchanan’s history includes serving as an assistant to Richard Nixon, and also to Ronald Regan. An accomplished journalist in his younger career, Pat Buchanan wrote speeches for the Reykjavik summit with Mikhail Gorbachev, and Richard Nixon’s popular speech to the opening of China in 1972.
A solid Republican through many years in the White House Pat Buchanan saw a growing problem and decided to do something about it. Buchanan says, ” The other parties do not realize the problems in America, we are loosing our country and what we stand for”. Buchanan wasted no time on stage knocking both Gore and Bush, because they are failing to talk about real problems in the United States. “These guys stand up here and are scared to death to step on each other toes and tell the Gods honest truth”. Buchanan feels that he left the Republican Party because they will not fight for American rights.
Buchanan really focused his ideas with building America back to the nation our founding fathers wanted. He pointed out the problem with America’s heritage taking Washington’s day and changing it to President’s day. Buchanan explained, “When did we stop celebrating our first President of United States, and start celebrating Presidents such as Bill Clinton”. He also argued the problem of changing Christmas break to Winter break, and Easter break into Spring break. What’s more surprising is his views on why America is changing and what he will do to change America back to the land of liberty. Buchanan blames the change in United to States to the problem with immigration. “With too much immigration we are loosing communication with each other, we should teach all new immigrants English and emphasize American history first and foremost’. Buchanan feels that, “English is what as Americans brings us together, so everyone who lives in America should know English”. Buchanan also offered a strict policy on immigration on his new plan.
Under Buchanan’s new plan he will cut foreign aid and also pull troops out of Europe and the Middle East.
Beveridge drew on 19th century antebellum expansion during his speech. In paragraphs 1-3, he explained how America was so many different things that added to the greatness of the colonies. For example, he said America was “a noble land that god has given us” and “a greater England with a nobler destiny.” He also drew on the fact that we had “saved” other nations from being savage. Beveridge spoke of the resources in the countries that America had conquered. “Their [Puerto Rico's] trade will be ours in time,” further explaining that he was pro-expansion for his own benefit.
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...
As we move into the reelection year, the authors accuse Nancy of ensuring that Reagan hasn’t campaigned for eight months, following a “Rose Garden strategy.” But Reagan has no credible opponent for the 1984 nomination, and Walter Mondale, who will be his Democratic opponent in the general election, has not yet been nominated. So there is no need for a strategy, Rose Garden or otherwise. Of course we get the full chapter and verse on Reagan’s poor performance in his first debate with Mondale; at least we also get the report on the second debate. From there the narrative jumps to the Iran-Contra affair. A few high points — like the Berlin Wall speech in 1987 — are indeed included, but without any perspective on Reagan’s strategy, perseverance with the Soviets on arms control, or success in revitalizing the U.S. economy. Nothing is said about Reagan’s four second-term summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Except for a few comments that Reagan deplored Communism, this is a policy-free book, and a book
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’
Both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were elected to Congress in 46, a year in which the New Deal took a serious beating as the Republicans regained control of Congress on the slogan Had Enough? Nixon of course, had campaigned against incumbent Jerry Voorhis on an anti-New Deal platform, but it's often forgotten that when JFK first ran for the House in 1946, he differentiated himself from his Democratic primary opposition by describing himself as a fighting conservative. In private, Kennedy's antipathy to the traditional FDR New Deal was even more extensive. When Kennedy and Nixon were sworn in on the same day, both were already outspoken on the subject of the emerging Cold War. While running for office in 1946, Kennedy proudly told a radio audience of how he had lashed out against a left-wing group of Young Democrats for being naive on the subject of the Soviet Union, and how he had also attacked the emerging radical faction headed by Henry Wallace. Thus, when Kennedy entered the House, he was anything but progressive in his views of either domestic or foreign policy. It didn't take long for these two to form a friendship. Both were Navy men who had served in the South Pacific, and both saw themselves as occupying the vital center of their parties. Just as JFK lashed out against the New Deal and the radical wing of the Democratic party, so too did Richard Nixon distance himself from the right-wing of the Republican party. Nixon's support of Harry Truman's creation of NATO and the aid packages to Greece and Turkey meant rejecting the old guard isolationist bent of the conservative wing that had been embodied in Mr. Republican Senator Robert Taft. Indeed, when it came time for Nixon to back a nominee in 1948, his support went to the more centrist Thomas E. Dewey, and not to the conservative Taft. Kennedy decided to go into politics mainly because of the influence of his father. Joe Kennedy, Jr. had been killed in the European arena of World War II and so the political ambitions of the family got placed on the shoulders of John. Nixon, however, got involved in politics by chance. While celebrating the end of the war in New York, he received a telegram from an old family friend indicating that they needed someone to run against the Democrat Jerry Voorhis.
To hold up his claim of such a policy, he uses three supports during the speech. The first support is that “if we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.” To back up such an idea, he uses two backings. The first backing is “if we pull out. they (the terrorists) will not leave us alone”.
The debate team of Wiley College faced many colleges to be recognized and finally in the end winning a debate against the reigning debating champions, Harvard University. One of the debaters who caught my attention was James Farmer Jr., the youngest on the team that started out as an alternative. James Farmer sought recognition from adults and wanted to show everyone he was capable of debating. James Farmer incorporates a lot of Ethos and Pathos into his speech making, allowing him to leave his audience filled with emotions and in awe. Although James Farmer interested me, especially the way he presented his final speech, James Farmer and I are very different in the way we deliver our speeches.
Patrick Buchanan was a supporter of free trade from early on in his career until 1987. At that time, while he was seeking the Republican nomination for President, he was on a campaign trip. He visited a small town which was based around a plant. 500 people were about to loose their jobs. He spoke with workers and they blamed competition from international trade. That event changed his mind about free trade. He believes that the social benefits are not great enough to override the economic disadvantages that free trade causes. It benefits, the upper class, large corporations, and those who have received advanced educations, but not the "blue collar" workers. Those who have not received extensive schooling and are best served to do manual labor suffer greatly from foreign competition. Businesses can have plants in other countries where workers are paid as little as fifty cents, while plants in America are required to pay workers several dollars minimum. Many industries are building plants in foreign countries, manufacturing their goods there, and shipping them back. As we have increased globalization and extended trading with the reduction of tariffs, the implementation of NAFTA, and the organization of the WTO, it has become easier for business to hire workers in countries with lower wages. This has caused many manufacturing workers across America to loose their jobs. Over the past several decades, as free trade increased, the gap between the affluent and the middle class has risen dramatically. Buchanan believes that free trade is brining the decline of America, and our government is doing it to our own nation. They are increasing foreign relations and trading in an effort to bring about world peace. However, Buchanan does not believe that free trade will aid in world peace. He believes that the ideal for free trade, where each country specifies in the industry it is best in, can never be obtained.
Shmoop Editorial Team. "Politics in Progressive Era Politics." Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 05 Apr. 2014. .
The best way to examine this speech is through a speech-act methodology. Speaker-setting and speaker-audience relationships are key in the analysis of this situation. Before answering the proposed research question we can ask another important question. Why did former President Bill Clinton choose to give this address? According to the Hart text several things must be true. 1. The speaker feels something is wrong. After several rounds of questioning the American public was growing ti...
Because of the controversial issues surrounding President G.W. Bush before and during the time of his reelection, the acceptance speech that he delivered is an important piece of literature to study. This diplomatic speech is a piece of rhetorical contribution because the motives and meanings behind any President’s speech is significant to us as citizens of the United States of America. It further warrants our attention because if the audience is able to comprehend the inner meanings and motives behind a presidential speech, then they will eventually be able to differentiate the actual stances and platforms of future presidential candidates and nominees.
Turner, Robert L. (1999, July 20). A cynical look at American politics; Book Review; The New Prince; by Dick Morris. The Boston Globe, p. E3.
During this Foreign Service, Buchanan’s name was mentioned as the Democratic Party’s for the 1856 Presidential Election. Buchanan had strived for this election in the three previous elections; it had seemed to pass over him. But by 1856, Buchanan was ready to retire from public service and only accepted the nomination out of duty and obligation. Buchanan didn’t actively campaign for the presidency, but instead remained quietly at home in Wheatland.
When Theodore Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, failed to continue Roosevelt’s ongoing charismatic progressivism, both were bested by the newcomer, Woodrow Wilson. Although not receiving a majority in the vote, he, nonetheless, knew the country still ached for the progressivism it jubilantly basked in for so many years, which he called his "New Freedom." Immediately, Wilson went to work on what ...
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.