Considering his audience, the
contemporary world events, and our present-day hindsight, Romney’s speech was
brilliant. Considering the rhetoric that drove this genius, the tactics used to
convey his message were no less remarkable. It is a special skill to be able to
see the things happening in the world around you and present a convincing
solution – it demands a knowledge of those events, a reciprocity towards one’s
audience, and a special command of syntax to pull it all together.
Many
people will say that Romney’s speech would have been offensive towards those
without a belief in God – but think about it, how many Republican’s don’t
believe in God? 2007 – the year this speech was given – was the year preceding
Romney’s unsuccessful run for the Republican party presidential candidate. I’m
not saying that there are no atheistic Republicans, but a person that wants to
win does not appeal to the minority, he or she appeals to the majority.
So
how does one appeal to the possibly offended religion-hating Republicans? Why
not with logic? That seems to be Romney’s approach to the situation, and he
does it well. 2007 was also a time of great political and religious upheaval
throughout the world, waves that seem to be reaching their peaks today, seven
year later. He brought up ISIS and other major threats to U.S. security and overall world well being, and presented at least one solution - what he thought mattered most. What might have helped him? Had the country known the horrible economic tragedy
that would strike the nation in early 2008, an occurrence that would have
certainly suited this great businessman better than any other person in the
world.
Jacob, your thesis is good, but there are some small flaws. Fixing these would help it exponentially. First, just because someone is Atheist doesn't mean they hate religion or deity or God. It just means they don't believe in it. You pull a pretty bad fallacy by poisoning the well and generalizing all atheists in the same group.
ReplyDeleteSecond, some fact checking would help out. Romney doesn't mention ISIS; in fact, ISIS wasn't recognized by the world as a whole until this past year. When he references "jihadists," he's referring to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and other radical groups.
You are right about my mention of ISIS. An argument could be made for it, but assuredly nothing conclusive. I should have stuck with his wording. Thanks for pointing that out!
DeleteAs to your first point, however, do you even know what "poisoning the well" means? Because it didn't occur. In fact, I said nothing about atheists "hating religion or deity or God," nor did I attempt to undermine any group's position via slander or false witness before they had a chance to disclose it ("poisoning the well"). I think I see where you assumed that I was talking about atheists - but I never referred to them. I ought to make that more clear, but considering your assumption, your point actually seems self-contradictory. Sometimes it seems like you just learned a bunch of analytical jargon in high school and want to throw it out whenever possible (or not possible) in search of self-agrandizement. It's like intellectual bulimia with brain vomit. It can be helpful to know the lingo, but not if it doesn't match the principle. (That was totally meant in the kindest way possible. Haha.)
That should go on a T shirt.
ReplyDelete