Rhetoric of Social Issues

I’ve always found it rather unique the way conservatives and liberals respectively present their views on very sensitive social issues. The two ideological groups certainly talking about different things, but they present the issue in completely different ways to appeal to the voters.

Regardless of political persuasion, there is no denying that one of the most hot-button social issue of the day is birth control coupled with abortion. I’m a little nervous about coupling birth control and abortion because I think it’s easy for people to simply view abortion as a means of birth control, and ignored the multitude of reasons women or couples may seek this option.   In many ways, when I consider the differences in the way conservatives and liberal present their views on these issues, I find it relatively hard to remember they’re the discussing the same topic.

To begin, conservative views of social issues are usually swayed by largely traditional religious influence. The same religious and traditionalist argument is used to validate the conservative notion in deny gays equal rights. In turn, conservatives view the use of birth control or abortion as a means of defying God’s will, and in both circumstances denying or taking life. Regarding birth control specifically, conservatives use the rhetoric that conveys the idea that family planning and means of restricting birth are defying the almighty. This of course largely appeals to the pathos and logos of individuals of a similar conviction. It is never seen that a staunchly conservative figure concedes on the fact that birth control is widely used to prevent disease, as abstinence is widely supported. In many ways, you can’t argue with the fact that if you’re not having sex you won’t catch something, or you won’t get knocked up, but realistically, abstinence is hardly the answer. The Guttmacher Institute regards premarital sex universal in the US, and has been for numerous decades. It is also rarely mentioned that women might use birth control to simply regulate biological functions, regardless of sexual activity. Of course, this religiously fueled rhetoric directly resonates with religious Americans that agree that birth control denies God’s will, and should not be left up to mere mortals to decide the fate of a life.

Liberals, on the other hand, capitalize largely on the fact that denying individual the right to use birth control is directly an impedance of personal freedom. Much like the rhetorical appeal of the conservative argument, this resonates with a sympathetic voter’s pathos and logos. This would largely resonate with men and women that are sexually active that hope to protect themselves from diseases and prevent unwanted pregnancy. It also resonates with advocates for women’s rights that argue the right to choose to regulate one’s own body should be unquestionable.

In case you couldn’t tell I’m extremely liberal in my political views on social issues, and I’m of the belief that denying people the right to birth control is a direct attack on personal freedom. I just can’t reconcile my views on the necessity of separation of church and state to be sympathetic of the conservatives’ justification of denying rights because it flies in the face of a certain groups’ religious beliefs. However, I can also recognize that the liberal view on birth control could be difficult for the majority to align with, because it fails to address religious beliefs, and in being honest with ourselves, the majority of people are dedicated to some kind of religious belief.  Again, I am of the opinion that our government has the duty to protect minority interests, and the moral majority certainly doesn’t have the right to dictate actions of the individual based on a religious conviction.

Again, it seems to me that the two ideological groups use such different justifications in their arguments and use such different tactics to appeal to voters that it creates a sort of no-man’s-land for more moderate voters, as there’s no rhetoric that targets the middle ground.

1800 vs. Patron

After I finally found my commercial on Youtube, I decided to take a look at the 1800’s other ad campaigns to see if they matched the format of the one I chose. I found that the most recent ad campaign included about eight commercials, all with the same actor, however, a few different techniques were used. The first, like the one I will be speaking about next week, attacks current social practices. A few were commentary on ‘manliness’ and a few attacked advertising methods.

The most interesting, however, is that many advertisements basically worked as attack ads against Patron’s brand of Tequila. More or less, the ads juxtaposed the possible lifestyles both brands of tequila had to offer. 1800 colored Patron as showy and foolish, while 1800 was refined, but still easy-going.

1800 Tequila (I guess) has this topper that can be doubled as a shot measurer, in that you simply turn the bottle upside-down while the toppers on and it pours you  a shot. 1800 then used a Patron bottle in the same ad, saying “What can your stopper do? Nothing”. And for some reason, while watching this commercial, the 1800 bottle began to look way better to me! The patron bottle just looked dumb with its little green ribbon and cork stopper. Because the actor in the commercial was, in a way, laughing at this useless bottle, I too wanted to view it as useless. I can honestly say, I was a little tricked by this.

I mean, tequila’s tequila’s tequila’s right? I’m sure the two are comparable value and comparable taste. I certainly wouldn’t have the refined palate enough to taste the difference… But this little attack add might lead me to buy 1800.

It really is interesting how many advertisements covertly attack other brands and products. This ad was just a little more blatant, and the honesty of them more or less saying their product is better seems kind of believable.

V-Day and Rhetoric

What was once a wonderful day to celebrate the stoning of a saint has turned into something dark and unholy. That’s right, Valentine’s Day.

Geoffrey Chaucer’s original notion of courtly love has been bastardized into a holiday of consumerism and impending loneliness. That’s right, you can blame Geoffrey Chaucer and Hallmark for why you don’t want to wake up on February 14. Poor guy turns a saint’s day into a day of love through a dinky little poem, and he never got any royalties from greeting cards. I’ll tell you that is a fact.

Full disclosure, I’m really not bitter about Valentine’s Day, but vehement hatred is far more interesting than grave indifference.  Really though, Valentine’s Day has turned into another day of buying things for someone because you want to (have to), or talking about being alone (because you have to).

So let’s talk rhetoric of the day of days. We’re heavily sold the idea that certain ideas must be bought more a significant other on the day. A card, candy, jewelry. Interesting how heteronormative and focused on classic gender roles these expectations are.

I rest my case, with this.

I suppose in many ways, one could argue that all holidays are based on rhetoric promoted by Hallmark’s sales, but few days are less striking than the feared Valentine’s Day. Perhaps the stigma of being in a relationship or not develops a unique kind of social rhetoric. At the end of the day, Hallmark’s going to be in the black, mainly because the emotion of it all tells us to consume consume consume, or we’re lacking. We’re unloved. We’re always being persuaded to understand that a relationship is good and normal and without it, you’re not complete. I would never argue that this isn’t true. We all need to be loved in some way, or I’m pretty sure we all would end up like the Unabomber, but we don’t all need a heart filled with chocolates on February 14 to live on.

At the end of the day, the rhetoric of any holiday is based on expectations, and advertisers exploit this to get a buck.

If I were you, I’d celebrate the 15^th and get all the candy and things on the cheap. Beat the system but still have some delicious cocoa goods.

This I Believe

Propaganda - Good or Bad?

I’ve always found it interesting to study propaganda posters and imagines when they have been presented in my history classes. I’m sure we can all recognize the famous American propaganda images from World War II.

to source

to source

to source

 Most would agree that these images may seem a little over the top or ridiculous; particularly the poster on the right in that it’s wildly racists. However, these type of images were produced with the goal of getting Americans into the war effort. They were used to motivate, inspire, and occasionally put fear into the hearts of a people. With images like these, along with odd social incentives, Americans really did get into the war effort. People saved rubber, children collected tin foil from abandoned cigarette packs, and women went to work. Ultimately, the goal of the images worked. The people themselves began to understand that there was an enemy that needed to be feared and combatted against.

What’s interesting to consider is that American propaganda is not unlike any other countries’ material. It may be unsavory to consider it, but our methods of manipulation to gain support are not unlike the methods used by the Nazi party and the Soviets. The supposed enemy is demonized, and hard work and dedication to the war-effort is exemplified. Transnationally, the methods seem to be identical. However, it is examples such as these that give propaganda a negative connotation, when really it is simple a forward for of rhetoric.

to source

to source

to source

 It’s a type of rhetoric that is seemingly used only in dire times. Such blatant bias is rarely displayed in times of peace, political or otherwise. To take a modern example, though it’s not on the same level as world war propaganda, we’ve all seen propaganda-esqu posts on the Internet associated with the SOPA/PIPA act, and now the ACTA proposition. Some people have even changed their profile picture to something that references SOPA’s censorship. It’s fair to say that these posts and images have the same intention of war propaganda, and they are indeed propaganda. People opposed to SOPA/PIPA and ACTA hope to gain support by developing harsh imagery usually associated with censorship so people will support their cause, and oppose the legislation. 

to source

It is still interesting to consider that perhaps propaganda is a “last resort” form of rhetoric to convince and indoctrinate people. Most advertisers prefer to use less noticeable methods to sell their product or idea.