I'm sure almost all of you know by now that Illonois Governor Rob Blagojevich was defamed for corruption recently. Well, I don't know if any of you saw Blagojevich's speech responding to his impeachment but it was a semantic gem and I just had to share it . (if you want to watch the speech here is the link http://www.zimbio.com/Rod+Blagojevich/articles/564/Governor+Rod+Blagojevich+Post+Impeachment its on the bottom of the page.)
Does he think that everyone is just not going to forget the corruption charges when he stands in front of a group of sympathetic people? The man showed his belief in his constiuenciy's stupidity when he labored under the impression that he wouldn't get caught selling the senate seat but really this is taking it to another level. He must believe that everyone watching the speech is somehow mentally incapable of logical thought. By quoting talking about all the good things he's done and quoting Tennyson does he belief people will simply ignore the fact that he sold a senate seat?
This speech, though fairly entertaining, also made me ill at ease. As we spoke about early in the year politicians seem to stray away from real information, sticking to high levels of abstraction when speaking. This is understandale when campaigning but it seems like at some point they should begin addressing the issues. I was wondering also, if anyone knows if it has always been this way or if it has gotton worse in the past few decades? I fear that politicans will continue to get higher and higher on the abstraction ladder until they simply spout a few useless but morally sounding ideas. It seems that if the masses wanted their politicans to give more specific speeches they could make it happen, considering their ultimate goal is typically gaining the people's support and keeping it.
Molly Dunbar
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, I think don't think that Blagojevich thinks that he can get rid of the fact that he sold a senate seat. He merely wants to lower the intensity of the negative thoughts associated with him (although that will be hard). After all, he is a politician, and all politicians are after one thing- reelection. He is saving some face as he tries to defend himself.
While I think that politicians should eventually stop these highly abstracted speeches, I don't think it will happen very soon. It seems that the majority of people still buy into these speeches and don't examine the intentions and words of politicians like we do. As long as those people are the majority, these politicians will continue with such speeches.
This is what distinguishes the good from the bad, in a way, right? Just as you've acknowledged, sticking to high levels of abstraction is necessary to a certain extent during campaigns. The key is making sure that the lower levels of abstraction are still intact and strong so that the politician may return to them after being elected.
Blagojevich tried to create the illusion of an upstanding character by creating lower level examples of his "morality". Whether the examples are true or not is hardly relevant though, because they have no bearing on the Senate seat issue. Though, I must admit that I don't find his speech to be very self-assured. Perhaps it's because the facade is so utterly ridiculous to me, but it almost seems like a formality. Does he honestly believe that anyone believes him after the hard evidence has been laid out for all to see? Doubtful. So, I'm thinking that the speech is an empty gesture at best.
I certainly agree with what Molly's saying. Politicians like to skirt around the issue. And, like she says, they speak in higher levels of abstraction. On the one hand, though, (maybe Blagojevich is too far gone for this, though) it seems that if he had just apologized people might be more forgiving. But I guess that's the world of politics: avoid the issue, and people tend to like you; discuss an issue, and you make enemies. I guess this is an extreme case, but I think Blagojevich was just following the same unfortunate pattern that most politicians have fallen in to.
Emily T.
Going along with the idea that the person who gets the last word wins, I feel that Blagojevich's speech would have some, if not necessarily a large, effect on his public image. It is true that he will most likely be remembered for trying to sell his Senate seat but perhaps his time in the media's spotlight will be reduced. The sooner he "apologizes," the sooner the story has run its course. Had he not spoken, the media would have insisted on painting him as an extreme villian. While I am not implying that Blagojevich is a shining example of moral character, the media does tend to exaggerate. So his appeal to high levels of abstraction in order to distract the public might be effective and even justifiable, if you consider it as a counterweight to the media.
Well, Blagojevich has very good reason for trying.
It wouldn't be unheard of if people actually fell for his tactics and began to forgive him, even if just a little. Nixon successfully did so with his famous "Checkers speech", in which he responded to allegations of corruption and illegal campaign contributions by giving a very emotional and sentimental address. "Checkers" was the name of a puppy that his children had received from a campaign contributor, and Nixon manipulated the public's emotions (such as bringing up puppies) to such an extent that he was completely forgiven for his offenses.
Politicians rely upon several tools in making their speeches, two of which are very important: high levels of abstraction and the use of pathos. Although we may view Blagojevich's speech and scoff, there might be others out there more sympathetic toward him. Words can be powerful.
(Eric Wei)
While people are clearly entitled to their own perspectives and have varying morals, I still find it difficult to believe that there are some people out there who are more sympathetic towards Blagojevich. Could someone really feel sympathy towards him after hearing about his shockingly corrupt actions? Perhaps I cannot understand this because I am stubborn in my views or because I am influenced by the media, but the fact remains that I cannot seem to grasp the possibility of people feeling sympathy towards a scapegrace (hooray for vocab!). What do you guys think? Are you at all convinced by Blagojevich's speech? (He failed to convince me.)
On another note, I agree with Mary that it is not likely that politicians will stop speaking on such high levels of abstraction any time soon, because it seems as if there are many people who take their word, despite the fact that there are those of us who recognize and are rather ticked-off by their evasive tactics. What say you to the proposition that we suggest that everyone read Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action? Would this cause more people to perceive the rhetorical tactics used by politicians? I would surely believe so...
(Janet Lee)
One thing that people fail to realize from time to time is that politicans are fallible. We expect them to carry the world on their shoulders and make our (figurative) aches and pains disappear. But they are just as human as we are and can't possibly have a firm grip on ALL topics. Thus, they resort to high levels of abstraction. I'm afraid that Blagojevich used more than abstraction, however. He blamed his impeachment on something other than trying to sell his seat in the Senate. He claimed that 114 members of the House who were in favor of impeachment fail to adhere to the "Golden Rule." He is convinced that his impeachment is due to the fact that he aided those suffering with breast and cervical cancer. The thing is, though, that this is clearly not an offense and was not included "the federal indictment against Blagojevich for attempting to receive monetary gain from a Senate appointment". Is there really that much of a fine line between abstraction and falsity? What a shame. Some politicians have just taken it too far.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment