Watch More News Videos at ABC
|
2012 Presidential Election
|
Entertainment & Celebrity News
I guess I just like those hot-button issues. So here's my example of rhetoric from the presidential campaign. This is the now famous affirmation from President Obama that he supports, "personally," the idea that "same-sex couples should be able to get married."
I also have a statement from Josh Earnest, Special Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Press Secretary, in which he explains how Mr. Obama came around to this resolution to support gay couples in their quest to be recognized by the state as "married." Marriage goes beyond the distinction of "civil unions" in that it is the same terminology used by heterosexual couples. This has people who support gay rights cheering and those who think that gay people marrying is an attack on "traditional marriage" chiding the President.
Whatever your view on this issue, it most certainly is rhetoric. Even though Mr. Obama characterizes this as his personal view on the matter, it has political and historical implications that reach far beyond his family, the White House and even his political party. I'm not sure how far I am supposed to go with this, but I'll at least start by characterizing much of what he said as "pathos." Much of his text is designed to make the audience feel emotion. He speaks of friendships, family and, specifically, his children. Mr. Obama states that he wouldn't want us, his audience, to have to "somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law." He speaks of respecting the views of others and of what I would characterize as the lesser of two evils - accepting gay marriage or persecuting gay people by not allowing them to marry. To Socrates, this equates to "good."
I believe he made this statement for several reasons. One was in the hopes that he would be seen as "a good man," by taking what he hoped his rhetoric would prove is the moral high road. Second, I believe he hoped that he would show that Mr. Romney is not in favor of gay marriage and, thus, to imply to the audience that Romney is choosing the more evil of the two. I think this was pretty smart, because, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. And trends show that that number has been increasing steadily over the past fifteen years.
Romney would counter that Mr. Obama is "playing politics" by distracting the public from the important issues, like the economy. But like it or not, this is one of those issues that does play into peoples' hearts and at the end of the day could sway voters over to the Democratic ticket. Or it could strengthen the base of the Republican party. Whatever it does, it will be interesting to see how this snippet of rhetoric helps determine the election.
I guess I just like those hot-button issues. So here's my example of rhetoric from the presidential campaign. This is the now famous affirmation from President Obama that he supports, "personally," the idea that "same-sex couples should be able to get married."
I also have a statement from Josh Earnest, Special Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Press Secretary, in which he explains how Mr. Obama came around to this resolution to support gay couples in their quest to be recognized by the state as "married." Marriage goes beyond the distinction of "civil unions" in that it is the same terminology used by heterosexual couples. This has people who support gay rights cheering and those who think that gay people marrying is an attack on "traditional marriage" chiding the President.
Whatever your view on this issue, it most certainly is rhetoric. Even though Mr. Obama characterizes this as his personal view on the matter, it has political and historical implications that reach far beyond his family, the White House and even his political party. I'm not sure how far I am supposed to go with this, but I'll at least start by characterizing much of what he said as "pathos." Much of his text is designed to make the audience feel emotion. He speaks of friendships, family and, specifically, his children. Mr. Obama states that he wouldn't want us, his audience, to have to "somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law." He speaks of respecting the views of others and of what I would characterize as the lesser of two evils - accepting gay marriage or persecuting gay people by not allowing them to marry. To Socrates, this equates to "good."
I believe he made this statement for several reasons. One was in the hopes that he would be seen as "a good man," by taking what he hoped his rhetoric would prove is the moral high road. Second, I believe he hoped that he would show that Mr. Romney is not in favor of gay marriage and, thus, to imply to the audience that Romney is choosing the more evil of the two. I think this was pretty smart, because, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. And trends show that that number has been increasing steadily over the past fifteen years.
Romney would counter that Mr. Obama is "playing politics" by distracting the public from the important issues, like the economy. But like it or not, this is one of those issues that does play into peoples' hearts and at the end of the day could sway voters over to the Democratic ticket. Or it could strengthen the base of the Republican party. Whatever it does, it will be interesting to see how this snippet of rhetoric helps determine the election.
I fully agree that this is complete pathos. This is a move designed to persuade some of the single-issue voters to vote for Obama. I think this whole issue in the presidential campaign is kind of funny because it's such a small issue in terms of the presidency. It doesn't matter which side you take on this matter, what it really comes down to is that the president doesn't have much of a say in it. The fact that Obama has come out in support of gay marriage is a purely political move dripping in pathos. He hopes to win people over by showing how much he cares about the community and the people he serves, and even his family values. Who doesn't want a president who cares deeply about the people he leads? When it comes down to it, however, it doesn't really matter. Politically, that is.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that Presidential affirmation is a huge Ethos thing. That goes back to monarchies where king's word is law just as god's word is law. "On Earth as it is in Heaven."
ReplyDeleteThe Pathos is a direct logos return salvo from the pathetic shrilling that marriage "is for the children." If the function of tax benefits and judicial constraints are in place to stabilize the rearing of the next generation (you can't simply be a baby's daddy and walk away), then the constraints and benefits logically fall on same sex marriage. Note the stress of monogamous: the implication that "they are like you." Polygamous arrangements might be too expensive for the government...think of the EIC credits! Even if they would be more efficient in a dual earner economy. Think M/F/Bi triad. Lol
I like it Jesse. I'll loan you "In One Person," the new Irving novel, if you'd like. But who would claim head of household? Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I agree with both of you. Ethos as Jesse says, because as president it "matters" what he thinks. It's also "dripping with pathos" as Meghan put it.
But let us also consider Mr. Obama's rhetoric from a purely Socratic standpoint. Perhaps he is speaking his conscience. We may never know. But perhaps the politics of the time have actually allowed Obama to say how he really feels. Notice he doesn't say "and I will pass a law that allows gay people to marry and blah blah blah..." He simply says "I believe that..." Is this one of those rare opportunities in which a president gets to put politics aside?
Think of your own position on the subject. Now put yourself in the President's shoes. What would YOU say? I would say I support it and I would be telling the truth. But does the fact that the polling shows that it's a "popular" position make it just empty rhetoric? Or does the media just paint it that way?
It's a complex issue - my suspicion is that Obama has long been a supporter, but hasn't felt politically secure in saying so previously. But I also think that he is reading the historic tea leaves, which, by my reckoning, suggest that within a generation the cultural angst around homosexuality just won't be driving policy anymore - that is, my kids (I hope) will grow up in a world where same-sex marriages are common. So, it makes sense for a President to get on the right side of this, in part because this moment will be recognized as a historically important moment. Presidents like those, when it comes to making an impact on Civil Rights. Johnson did this too, in a way, when he signed the Civil Rights Bill and changed American politics - suddenly for the states rights people, Democrats were the wrong side. But Johnson could tell this was inevitable. It makes sense to voice it.
ReplyDeleteThere are ethos and pathos pieces in this (though as always, I'd love pinning those claims to particular passages) certainly - but I wonder about logical elements as well - certainly, primary in a logical argument about same-sex marriage is the claim that gays and lesbians are pretty much just like straight people - so that if something is right or okay for straight people, it should be right and okay for gays and lesbians too. Straight people can get gym memberships, so gay people should be able to get them too. It's an argument by example, and it's really perfectly logical, at least in a formal sense. The requirement of an argument denying the right to same-sex marriage, then, is to claim that there are differences that matter in this context. The reason that same-sex marriage becomes less and less scary is that most of us, now, know a lot of same-sex couples, have them in our family, and so forth. So it's getting harder and harder to claim that there are differences that matter. That, though, is logos -