Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor of rhetoric, defines demagoguery as “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-group, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called “an escape from freedom” (Roberts-Miller 50). One of the more common forms of demagoguery is polarization, which divides a diverse range of people into two polar opposite groups. The in-group is looked at as the good and correct group while the out-group is demonized and viewed as wrong and evil. The idea of in-group and out-group thinking, “insists that those who are not with us are against us”, creating a stronger hatred against the out-group (Miller 60). Demagoguery occurs most often in times …show more content…
of political and economic crisis and can be found across the political spectrum throughout history. One well-known demagogue from American history is George Wallace. George Wallace gave his powerful inaugural speech when he became governor of Alabama on January 14, 1964. Demagoguery is extremely present throughout his speech, specifically the use of polarization and other characteristics of demagoguery. Wallace appeals to the emotions and prejudices of people in order to advance his own political ends. In this paper, I will additionally explain Wallace’s use of demagoguery and fallacy, along with Adolf Hitler’s, another historical figures use of demagoguery. Wallace utilizes polarization throughout his entire inaugural speech. He successfully divides the population into two groups: the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is the Southerners who support the original duty of America’s founders and want to keep the United States segregated rather then the out-group, who is the federal government, who want to integrate the nation and allegedly abuse their power. The reason for Wallace’s use of polarization is a rhetorical strategy that aids his position on segregation and how he wants to govern the state of Alabama. Wallace’s audience is both the Southerners in the crowd most likely from Alabama and also the entire country watching through television, radio, etc. Uniting those in support of segregation allows the in-group to work together against the opposing out-group. By creating hatred towards the government, he is also creating unity among the Southerners as they now have a common ground against those who oppose. Wallace says, “We are faced with an idea that if a centralized government assume enough authority, enough power over its people, that it can provide a utopian life; that if given the power to dictate…will produce only “good” and it shall be our father and our god” (Wallace 73). Wallace is trying to make it seem like the federal government is trying to abuse its power and overrule the United States, although it is really just trying to integrate races. Wallace believes one can only be apart of “Great Angle-Saxon Southland” or part of the “tyranny that clanks its chains upon the south”, forcing his audience to join the in-group or the out-group. Wallace does is trying to manipulate his audience to believe if they aren’t with him they are against him. He attacks the government by comparing it to the devil and supports the southerners by making them feel as if they are above everyone else and that Alabama is a divine state. Wallace prizes the South by saying, “Alabama has been blessed by God as few states in this Union have been blessed” (Wallace 73) to portray the South as Godly. In this part of Wallace’s speech he uses demonizing his audience to justify his opinion in extreme measures. As Roberts-Miller said “it is a scare tactic that helps polarize the situation” (Roberts-Miller 53). He represents the in-group as greatest people to walk this earth. Then, Wallace exploits the federal government by demonizing them and referring to them as “system that is the very opposite of Christ for it feeds and encourages everything degenerate and base in our people as it assumes the responsibilities that we ourselves should assume” (Wallace 74). The clear negative representation makes support of the out-group almost impossible, influencing the audience to side with Wallace and his manipulative motives. Wallace further polarizes the in-group by stating that they are the essence of freedom while the out-group is removing freedom and implementing fear upon them with their overbearing central power. Wallace claims, ”this government must assume more and more police powers and we find we are become government-fearing people” (Wallace 74) and that ”It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith” (Wallace 74). Wallace believes the government is gaining too much power and control over their freedom. Wallace associates freedom with segregation and believes it is being stripped away due to the government’s decision to integrate blacks and whites, especially in the school system. Wallace states that “Each race, within its own framework has the freedom to teach, to instruct, to develop, to ask for and receive deserved help from others of separate racial stations. This is the great freedom of our American founding fathers. But if we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers then the enrichment of our lives, the freedom for our development, is gone forever. We become, therefore, a mongrel unit of one under a single all powerful government and we stand for everything and for nothing” (Wallace 76). Wallace is blaming the federal government for taking the freedom away from the American people by their decision to integrate the nations races.
Wallace, also, brings up the idea of the founding fathers and lists figures such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington as examples to associate highly identifiable members of American history with the in-group. Identifying these men with the South gives Wallace’s speech more creditability and helps persuade his audience to become a part of the in-group. Wallace points out these men are all from the South and to go against these men goes against the country’s original impression of freedom. One fallacy Wallace utilizes within his speech is the Ad Hominem fallacy. Ad Hominem can be defined as directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. This fallacy attacks the arguer and their character rather than the question at issue. Wallace attacks the federal government and only connects it to the audience’s pathos, or emotion. He brings up God and the Devil and freedom and power, which relate more toward one’s emotions. There is no realistic logic behind his argument, which leaves it weak and vulnerable. One sub-type of this fallacy is abusiveness. Wallace verbally attacks the government by demonizing them and making their motives appear out of line when all they want to do is integrate blacks and whites. This abuse …show more content…
has no real reason behind it. He is simply speaking out of anger because of desegregation. This fallacy challenges the reasoned debate because it paints a horrible picture of the enemy, which makes associating with them at all become impossible. It makes them appear so bad that it makes it difficult to believe Wallace’s evidence because it is so extreme and does not provide a valid debate besides trying to manipulate people who don’t agree to side with him. Also George Wallace uses a characteristic of demagoguery that Patricia Roberts-Miller refers to as nationalism.
Although Wallace uses nationalism in a different way than comparing ones nation, his approach is more that Alabama is “more sacred” (Roberts-Miller 57) then other states in the country, creating a sense of unity for Alabamians. Wallace uses nationalism to ignite the Southerners and to make them feel as if they are better then people who disagree with him because they are in Wallace’s eyes “fortunate” to be a part of such a God-blessed state. Also Patricia Roberts-Miller’s “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric” points out the weaknesses in people’s arguments by using characteristics demagoguery. She explains the many different types of demagoguery that can be seen in literature and speech and how it can be used to expose weak arguments. By using her work, we were able to evaluate a speech like George Wallace’s that can be weakened through examination. Wallace’s use of polarization effectively creates an in-group and an out-group, in which he demonizes the out-group. Another example of a commanding figure from American history that used polarization is Adolf Hitler. Hitler wrote the Mein Kampf after World War One, which contains a vast amount of demagoguery and polarization. He divides the nation into the in-group, the Aryans from Germany, and the out-group, the Jews. Hitler states “If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of
culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group” (Hitler). He goes on to say, “The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew” (Hitler). Hitler deems the Jewish as devilish and relates the Aryan’s as God-like. Similar to Hitler’s two groups this same god like and un-God like grouping of two groups is the same in Wallace’s speech. Wallace deems Southerners God-like and the enemy not. Hitler effectively divided and convinced the in-group that it was necessary to destroy the out-group resulting in a mass extermination of the Jews, known obviously as the Holocaust. Demagoguery, although false and cruel, proves to be effective in many cases. The polarization of two groups can lead to mob mentality amongst the in-group and extreme abuse against the out-group, as shown by Adolf Hitler. Both George Wallace and Adolf Hitler utilize demagoguery to achieve some type of goal. George Wallace’s speech effectively used polarization and incorporated the Ad Hominem fallacy. Similarly, Hitler’s book successfully used polarization as well. It is important to be aware when one is using demagoguery due to the dramatic and negative effects it can have on both the in-groups and the out-groups. Exploiting people’s emotions of fear and anger is unfair. However, those listening are probably desperate to listen to anything. When people are living in a time of crisis they become vulnerable and listen to any form of hope or idea someone has to offer. This leads to people getting taken advantage of and being gullible. If an authoritative figure needs an out-group to place the blame on, then they are not strong enough or capable to solve the issue they believe in. Like Ron Suskind once said “It is one thing to rouse the passion of people, and quite another to lead them.”
In the book Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer wrote about Christopher McCandless, a nature lover in search for independence, in a mysterious and hopeful experience. Even though Krakauer tells us McCandless was going to die from the beginning, he still gave him a chance for survival. As a reader I wanted McCandless to survive. In Into the Wild, Krakauer gave McCandless a unique perspective. He was a smart and unique person that wanted to be completely free from society. Krakauer included comments from people that said McCandless was crazy, and his death was his own mistake. However, Krakauer is able to make him seem like a brave person. The connections between other hikers and himself helped in the explanation of McCandless’s rational actions. Krakauer is able to make McCandless look like a normal person, but unique from this generation. In order for Krakauer to make Christopher McCandless not look like a crazy person, but a special person, I will analyze the persuading style that Krakauer used in Into the Wild that made us believe McCandless was a regular young adult.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
Propaganda is usually associated with brainwashing and manipulation, however it is justifiable when it is used to promote safety and health. For example, in public service announcements to warn the citizens of hazards and to promote safety to protect the people from the dreadful habits of the modern world. The main purpose of PSA’s are to make people aware and to make them act to reach a goal.
Politics is dirty and competitive and has not changed between 1879 and 2018. It is a complex system of jargon, charm, facts, and lies. Mark Twain’s “The Presidential Candidate” satirically expresses the essence of both old-world and modern politics as a presidential candidate who blatantly tells the truth of his wrongdoings. As a politician, one must be an open book. Their life must be truthfully written on the pages for the readers to analyze and evaluate their credibility as leaders. “The Presidential Candidate” resonates both in 1879 and 2018 with his use of humor, use of diction and use of subtlety.
It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.
Pollan’s article provides a solid base to the conversation, defining what to do in order to eat healthy. Holding this concept of eating healthy, Joe Pinsker in “Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods” enters into the conversation and questions the connection of difference in families’ income and how healthy children eat (129-132). He argues that how much families earn largely affect how healthy children eat — income is one of the most important factors preventing people from eating healthy (129-132). In his article, Pinsker utilizes a study done by Caitlin Daniel to illustrate that level of income does affect children’s diet (130). In Daniel’s research, among 75 Boston-area parents, those rich families value children’s healthy diet more than food wasted when children refused to accept those healthier but
...old, xenophobic white men don’t want just anyone off the street joining them for intellectual discussions over Sunday tea . This is why Wallace advocates for students in high school and college to learn SWE; if students are able to present themselves in a more erudite and intellectual manner by using SWE, it can provide them with more opportunities to ascend the “social ladder” as they will have a stronger foundation for academic and professional success. Using SWE will not guarantee that a student will become a doctor or a lawyer, however, they will have the opportunity to expand their education and achieve that ranking if they wish.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
Doing so, he had the citizens of America think of how the government is violating their rights and making them oppose against the government. He created rhetorical devices like: the appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, and juxtaposition. Giving the rhetorical technique to have people believe that the government has been taking away all of their rights has been an effective outcome because it was encouraging citizens to think that they’re better off with a smaller and less powerful government. The speech he constructed in all was an impactful speech to the people of America because the way he handles his words to have America think they’re making the country a better place, but slowly making the government become a capitalist
Advertisements are all over the place. Whether they are on TV, radio, or in a magazine, there is no way that you can escape them. They all have their target audience who they have specifically designed the ad for. And of course they are selling their product. This is a multi billion dollar industry and the advertiser’s study all the ways that they can attract the person’s attention. One way that is used the most and is in some ways very controversial is use of sex to sell products. For me to analyze this advertisement I used the rhetorical triangle, as well as ethos, pathos, and logos.
this tension is brought out in hate groups. Hate groups play off of the stereotypes of specific
Hamilton uses imagery and rhetorical language effectively in order to discredit his adversaries in the eyes of the people. His main tool is a rationalistic "truth" which he detaches from his opponents and associates with himself. He also portrays "truth" religiously, and connects the Constitution and its supporters with the highest cause. Hamilton passionately defends and elevates the people’s use of reason. But he equally passionately believes that the people’s reason is admirable only when it leads to the conclusion that the United States needs a strong, vigorous, central government.
Dalla Casa used Ad Hominem and hast generalization when she stated, " Too often I hear people equate property with laziness or worst criminal behavior and its heart-wrenching for me on a deeply personal leave." She used Ad hominem which attacked her rather than her argument and hast generalization which rush to conclusions before the reader had all the facts. Another example of Dalla Casa using logical fallacies is " very few children enjoy the conversation, love, companionship, and connection we had." The last statement was the use of bandwagon because the claim is basically saying this is correct simply because it is what most everyone is coming to believe. The weaknesses in Dalla casa article did take away from the overall
“Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred than when it tries to stir up a little friendly feeling?” (Russel). September 1st 1939 the brutal World War II was just beginning. (When did WWII start). This war was the start of many racial slurs that carried decades into the future. The Nazis knew propaganda was a very strong and reliable way to persuade people to understand and support their views, and soon enough it would help them change the course of history.
Somebody says criminal is bad people. Is it true? If it is true, this could be a form of fallacy. Fallacy is a misconception leads to unreasonable argument or disbelief in people's ideas. It happens with us everyday. Fallacy has many types and I want to refer to one of them: Ad Hominem. It is a judgment about people's appearance than the validity of their ideas, abilities, or work We usually see this fallacy in our life like politic, demonstration, even in our working environment. For example: politicians use others personal lives in debate to disqualify their opponents' arguments or use races to deny people's right to work or bosses use their experiences to judge their employees' work progress So we need to understand how Ad Hominem fallacy is used and how to avoid them.