Talking Points Memo

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

In “Why Don't We Complain?", William F. Buckley, Jr. addresses how Americans are having the tendency to sit back and accept what comes, to purely endure what happens to them. I think that Buckley’s ideas on passive compliance and heedless insurance are precise and effective.

In the New York Times Opinion Editorial Piece, “Trump Embarrasses Himself and Our Country,” Nicholas Kristof argues how Donald Trump’s picks for his administration are embarrassing, and do not represent the United States. Stage one of the informed citizen determines the need for critical self-protection when looking at rhetoric. One should ask two important questions about rhetoric before analysis, “Is a major claim on beliefs/attitudes/values or actions being made?” and, “Is the person relying merely relaying information or is he/she strategically presenting the material?” (p. 273 analyzing rhetoric). Applying this to the article by Kristof, I believe he is making a major claim on values and actions, and that he strategically wrote the article to persuade/inform the American people that read the New York Times.

In Nicholas Kristof’s article “America’s Stacked Deck,” his main point is to inform readers about the rigged economic system. Kristof presents this problem by addressing the faults with both political parties. He claims that majority of people represented by the political system are wealthy and explains that the changes being made do not benefit ordinary people. Kristof reassures his readers that they have a right to be angry and demand change, but blaming somebody is not the way to seek a solution. Kristof suggests that targeting solutions is more logical and beneficial than participating in scapegoats. He depicts that reducing the influence of money in politics is a starting point that must be orchestrated, while also reducing inequality. He persuades the readers to

appealing to our audience. Patricia Roberts-Miller studied the principles of demagoguery and how they appeal to the public to make appropriate decisions. Patricia Roberts also state "that the most that information, the less likely the public will make appropriate decisions", with this information we can conclude how they can be used to appeal to the people. in different topics we use different demagoguery or fallacies to divide people into two different groups; the ingroup and outgroup. The ingroup is viewed as the good and correct group while the outgroup is viewed as wrong and bad. Demagoguery occurs mostly in times of political and economic crisis. In the speech of George Wallace on the topic of segregation and Donald Trump 's speech on the topic of immigration are perfect examples of the use of demagoguery. I will analyse the use of demagoguery and fallacies; such as grandstanding, demonising, nationalism, and hasty generalization, throughout their speeches to see how they appeal to the audience, I believe that the strategies use will show how the argument is inaccurate or how it relies on fear .

"Is Donald Trump right about 'stupid' voters?." By Paul Waldman. Mr. Waldman in his editorial is saying that the basic American has no idea about politics and that they are just being ignorant, and that they watch a commercial or a small skit about their politician. That's what convincing them to vote for them, and that they have known idea who wants what, and who is going for what stand on the matter. Mr Waldman wrote, " But as an old saying has it, you may not hold an interest in politics, but politics will take an interest in you." This a great quote from this editorial because he is saying that there all these people who are saying I know all about politics, and I know why I vote for who I vote for, and they know how to fix all world problems.

Recognizing a speaker’s intended audience is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of rhetorical appeals and the overall argument. If I am able to successfully identify the intended audience of a speaker, I will be able to more thoroughly analyze the effectiveness of the speaker’ rhetorical appeals and devices (Lunsford et al. 92,93).

Thomas L. Friedman discusses a variety of topics in his article titled “Hillary, Jeb, Facebook and Disorder”. As a result, Friedman makes it very complicated to follow along. His thesis states, “We’re in the middle of some huge disruptive inflections in technology, the labor market and geopolitics that will raise fundamental questions about the future of work and the social contracts between governments and their people and employers and employees” (Friedman 1). Friedman’s call to action, which is similar to his thesis, tries to make readers aware of the problems that will occur in the future. However, Friedman does a terrible job at staying on topic. He discusses a variety of subjects, continuously

Sometimes analyzing how a speech is effective and the context behind it is more interesting than the speech itself. This is defiantly the case in Nick Hanauer’s speech against income inequality titled “Rich People Don’t Create Jobs.” With income inequality being a hot topic in contemporary American society, Hanauer has used it to his advantage by creating a great deal of controversy with his hypothesis on both ends of the political spectrum. A good number of people question his motives, and it’s understandable when you consider that Hanauer is an entrepreneur that also happens to be a billionaire. As a consequence, when a “job creator” is making statements like “it’s only honest to admit that when somebody like me calls

He hopes that they will somehow find common ground, despite their extreme differences on most issues of policy. Yet he fails to emphasize how dependent this revolt, so celebrated by Chris Hedges, will be on the ability of these groups to respond to the anger and despair of struggling families and workers in productive ways. The $15 minimum wage campaign coming out of Seattle is showing the way for the Occupiers, even as Obama has abandoned them in favor of the corporate-driven Fast Track. But the Tea Party has only delivered for the Koch brothers and Wall Street. Even though the Tea Party has drawn on popular anger at Wall Street and corporations, their politicians have been easily bought off by those same money

The respected political scientist James Q. Wilson summarized this political reality in a single sentence: "Telling people who want clean air, a safe environment, fewer drug dealers, a decent retirement, and protection against catastrophic medical bills that the government ought not to do these things is wishful or suicidal politics." Along with Wilson, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, recently noted that the "government social safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest achievements of our society....We have to declare peace on the safety net.”-(National Summit Video) Providing such services and securing that safety net does not mean accepting the technocratic mindset of the liberal welfare state. It means replacing that mindset with a conservative approach that puts government on the side of civil society and private enterprise in order to achieve a more just and thriving

I also discussed appeals to popular passions (your first reason) in my discussion board response. He plays off of the crowd’s interests to establish common ground (one of Aristotle’s main principles of rhetoric) and build up ethos so that the audience takes a greater interest in the process of persuasion (Simons et. al., 2001). In my response, I focused more on the appeals to conservative values such as patriotism/nationalism and Christianity, so I like that your response identified and explored some alternative appeals to passions that I didn’t notice until now. For example, I like how you pointed out his references to country music to connect with the conservative Tennessee crowd. You also included some interesting references to the use of fear appeals and the vilification of immigrants and outsiders.

Demagoguery attempts to simplify an argument so much so that it effectively shuts down any discussion. Through the use of rhetorical fallacies and other techniques, demagogues persuade the masses to support them. Although it can be successful, demagoguery is usually associated with a negative connotation because it plays on prejudices and emotions rather than rational. In Patricia Roberts Miller’s brief article, “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” she defines the various concepts of demagoguery, and using her article as a lens, both Wayne LaPierre’s transcript of his speech on Newtown Tragedy and Donald Trump’s presidential announcement contain different aspects of demagoguery like scapegoating, polarization,

This clip was taken from the second presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton dated October 9, 2016. The linked segment is a perfect example of a red herring fallacy. To understand what a red herring fallacy is in relation to argumentation, an explanation of fallacy is needed. According to the lecture by Professor Allman, a fallacy is an argument that is flawed by irrelevant or inadequate evidence, erroneous reasoning, or improper expression (Allman, 2016). A red herring fallacy, is when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to divert attention away from the original issue (Allman, 2016). In this youtube clip, the Presidential candidate, Donald Trump responds to a specific question by brushing it off

I make my way to the podium on the stage, and place my name placard before me, on it is MO-SCANLAN, and I gaze out at my audience of 350+ delegates, waiting patiently to hear what I have to say. Glancing to my left, I see Victor Agbafe, the young man who was thrust into the spotlight earlier that year after being accepted to all eight Ivy League schools, who was my collaborator for this speech because of all of the people in this room, he chose me to accompany him. Without a moment’s hesitation I delve into my speech supporting welfare reforms for larger families in low income areas throughout the United States, a speech that was met with a wave of approval from the audience as I passed the torch to Victor so that he could build upon the points I addressed. As I stepped down from the stage after Victor had finished, and made my way back to my seat amongst the sea of praise I was receiving from my peers, I couldn’t help but smile at the thought that the young man that had stood confidently before this room at the Youth Conference of National Affairs could hardly be recognized as the same quiet little boy that was told in Mrs. Lynn’s 5th grade class that he wasn’t cool enough to have an opinion in a conversation, the same kid that could sometimes be found in the library reading books rather than on the playground running around.