America's Inseparable Halves

George Sauders' critique of Twain's classic novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, claims that there exists a dichotomy between America's 'Huck' and America's 'Tom'. That is, between the hopeful spirit open to progress, and the rather bullheaded spirit that feels as though nothing needs changing. In the words of Saunders himself, "Tom likes kings, codified nobility, unquestioned privilege. Huck likes people, fair play, spreading the truck around". Just under 200 years later, that clash still exists in the struggle against systematic racism and xenophobia, for LGBT+ rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, and many more rights struggles that I'm less aware of than I should be. The question remains: on which side of the debate does the majority of America lie? Though our current government seems to be leaning heavily towards Tom, a good portion of he citizen body (and especially the young citizen body) seems to be set in a Huck-like resistance to those in power.

Earlier this week, I heard on NPR an ad for a news story to come later in the day. The announcer said they were having on Pat McCorny, the man behind the notorious North Carolina Bathroom Bill in order for him to give his "take on trans rights". Last time I checked, giving humans basic human rights wasn't an outlandish request, yet McCorny and so many other political leaders like him base their whole platforms on that idea of "unquestioned privilege", go into office planning on strengthening already existing discrimination. Trump's entire campaign revolved around xenophobia and racism, about shutting down and demonizing people who have been inherently deemed as lesser, about creating this great divide between "True Americans" and "Others", feeding heavily into this Tom-like idea of stratification of the populous. The call to "make America great again" and return to our traditions of old reflects eerily Tom's nonsensical call to follow 'prisoner's tradition' when leaving the farm straight away would have been far easier and less dangerous for all parties involved.

As bleak as this Tom-ish direction that our leaders are trending in seems to be, I can take hope in the Huck-ish resistance of the people. Black Lives Matter, for example, embodies all of Huck's ideals - encouraging fair treatment and truly equal opportunity for black people because, surprise, they're also people worthy of respect. Though Black Lives Matter has been a force for a significant number of years, our society is also springing up with many different movements in these last couples months as a retaliation against all the political Toms. Take the Dakota Access Pipeline protests with indigenous Americans risking their literal lives and safety in order to protect their land and access to clean water.  Or perhaps you'd like to look at the Women's March - a powerful (albeit a little white) force pushing to "spread the truck" to women. Consider the lawyers gathering in airports to combat the Muslim Ban or the LGBT protest recently held at the historic Stonewall Inn. The public is not standing for this "traditional" Tom mentality. Instead, they're using the guts that the actual Huck lacked and standing up to Tom, turning the nation's eye onto their cause. Though many of our positions of power are currently held by Toms, searching to maintain and even strengthen our current state of unequal privilege, they are facing resistance from a nation of Hucks, unwilling to sit down and let certain groups benefit off the suffering of others.

How Relevant is Postmodernism

Postmodernism is something that we see in our everyday lives, whether or not we notice it. The thing about postmodernism is that it isn't something that we do in our lives, it is our lives. What we do with ourselves how we want to be viewed by other people is completely up to the individual. What postmodernism does is it allows the average person to break free of the strict standards of society and make their own path to living.

Originally, the term postmodernism would refer to art or abstract art. What seems to be the case now is that postmodernism has spread into a lifestyle than a concept. People today will do anything and everything to stand out, which is the opposite of how it used to be. Back before the 1920's, people were all trying to fit into what an acceptable person would be. But, in the modern age, everyone wants to feel like a snowflake, like there's nothing exactly like you. The strict guidelines of society have now withered away, creating a prime example of what people today don't want to become.

We also see postmodernism in politics. The style of politics that we know now, with all of the arguing and personal attacks, was not always the way of politics. Even all of the TV broadcasting and the insane amount of viewership was not as immensely high even just a few years ago. This shows that even politicians want to be something new, or just something that is better than what America had previously.

Another way postmodernism is represented in society is through education. The education system in America used to be a lot more strict and un-enjoyable than it is today. Just imagine what it would be like to go to Fenwick, sort of like that. There used to be strict dress codes with no talking in class, only one gender in each school. Now a days, we take school for granted, complaining about anything that we get the chance to complain about. Meanwhile, the school system as a whole has developed exceptionally well from what it used to be pre-postmodernism.

Postmodernism has given people the true freedom of choice, whether it be what they wear, their profession, or the type of music they listen to. And people like to choose for themselves. It gives them a sense of power and even control on their life. The idea has gotten rid of strict ideologies and has opened up the world for new interpretation. Postmodernism is a way of life and has extended society into what it is today.

America: The land of the free and the home of the screwed

  America is a country founded over 300 years ago. In these 300 years our country has risen to the fore front of the world, but as of late our country has been crushed by bad presidents, rising debt, wars we cannot afford, rising unemployment rate.

During the last eight years Obama has been president the unemployment rate and debt has substantially risen. In the year 2008 Barack Obama was sworn in as the first African american president. Instead of leading what should've been a beaker of hope and new era for African american people. He has helped the economy crumble. After Obama's first term the unemployment rate was 7.9%. This means that 7.9% of people in our country did not have a job. In addition to this the american government is under 19 trillion dollars of debt. Since Obama has been president the debt has risen over 9 trillion dollars with no signs of slowing down. About roughly 6 trillion of this money was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan war. A war that our president promised to end but has not. The Iraq and Afghanistan war has claimed the life of 5,000 soldiers and wounded over 1 million of them. During the presidency Barack Obama has wreaked havoc on the united states of america and ways that even our next president cannot fix.
If the country continues to be run by bad leaders such as Barack Obama, america’s future will be a very dim one. This country needs a stronger leader that can rise to the challenge of fixing Barack Obama's mistakes. A president that will lower the debt, bring more jobs to america and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Changes in American Politics

The 2016 presidential election has created a turning point in American politics, where America's two major political parties began a complete ideological realignment. What has made this election's shift in ideas and beliefs possible is the extreme circumstances of the election such as Republican party's fracturing support for Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders', an avowed socialist, attempt for the Democratic party nomination, and much more.

These circumstances are possible in today's election because of the shift from the past traditional views of both parties to current push towards the real interests of today's electoral classes. The change of views has been small in the case of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, however, and dramatic in the case of Donald Trump.

The movement away from traditional views has facilitated a policy realignment that is significantly different than those of past years, creating uncertainty as people decide which party they fall under. The change in policies has been made possible for the Republican party because of Donald Trump's independence from donor's money, as he has rallied his voters completely from his own pocket, which is why Trump's ideas seem so far fetched. The result has been a fall in the traditional conservatism of the Republican party, as Trump is creating his own ideas and beliefs. However, the traditional Democratic party views have simply shifted in the past few decades. This was shown in this year's Democratic primary elections, as traditionalist, Jim Webb, was out of place among Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The destruction of traditionalist views have facilitated uncertainty among voters as they decided who they will vote for, which also destroys the fine line that once separated these classes.

As the policy changes continue to adapt throughout the next few decades, the beliefs of each party will change even more. As parties' views change, American citizens will become more and more divided, creating chaos as well as uncertainty. The future of American politics may involve new political classes, the destruction of our current ones, or the continuation of political realignment.

Since When Was 'Political Party' a Synonym for 'Cult'?

With only a few days left until the 2016 election, I feel I can safely say that our political system is an utter mess. I'm incredibly afraid for Tuesday's election, and rather pessimistic about the outcome no matter which candidate wins (though I must say I am more pessimistic about certain outcomes than others). Politics has lost all sense of uprightness that it may have had, resorting to personal attacks and extremist stances in both candidates and in the voter population.

The first thing that scares me is how unqualified some of the candidates (ie. Donald Trump) are. Setting his highly offensive platform aside, it baffles me how a man with literally no experience in politics can be viewed as equal in fitness to a woman with a political career of over thirty years. A man who has never been a politician is one step away from the highest level of political office in the country. That unqualified people have been given such chances at office is a terrifying sign that our political system is falling apart.

More than that, politics has become very much about throwing insults and slinging mud. The presidential debates have been a show of insults and one liners, bickering and name-calling, instead of a discussion of policies and effectiveness in office. Even outside of the presidential race, the whole political atmosphere has become highly unprofessional and people have begun to speak without thinking. Take, for example, Mark Kirk's sarcastic comment to Tammy Duckworth about her family coming from Thailand to fight for George Washington. An unsolicited and frankly racist comment such as that would have been well out of place in any earlier election season, but this year it hardly seems surprising. America has spiraled into a state where politicians don't have to appear representative or professional and can say whatever comes into their mind with minimal backlash.

The voting population as well has become much more unruly, and has also turned to personal attacks. People split between parties are not simply divided over some policy issues and willing to accept another's stance without agreeing with it; they are almost like warring factions, fighting bitterly and taking an opposing political stance as a personal threat to their morality and core beliefs. People have begun physically attacking each other and threatening death simply because they support another political candidate. Voting is no longer a choice of which candidate has more beneficial policies, but rather one of which candidate reflects your exact moral compass.

This has also lead to a great deal of voters, especially younger voters, who feel that neither candidate is at all acceptable and they have chosen to vote third party or to simply refrain from voting. Since the political climate has become so personal and the candidates are no longer representative of a set of policies but of every error or success they have ever committed as a human being, many voters feel that they cannot pick a candidate and remain morally true to their own values. Voting is supposed to be about picking someone who you may not agree with but you feel will be more beneficial, or at least minimally harmful, to the country. Now, it seems as though a voter must be willing to actively defend every action a candidate has ever taken, or they cannot support the candidate in any way, shape, or form.

Once the election is over, this won't go away. A deep rift has been formed between people in this country, and no matter the outcome, there will be many many people who are personally offended. There will be a great surge of anger, there may well be riots and violence. Politicians will be placed under incredible scrutiny, picked apart by the media and by those opposed to them. The president could fail to clean out the dishwasher one night and soon they would be criticized for being unorganized, unhelpful, disrespectful, and entirely unfit for the office they hold. Perhaps that last statement is an exaggeration, but many would agree with me that it could very well not be. The fact that it is even a possibility for such a thing to happen speaks volumes about the state of politics in America.

In short, George Washington was right. We should have stayed away from political parties. They have divided the nation in a total extreme, no longer just over policy but over personal actions. It seems almost cult-like, each faction on a witch hunt to prove its adversary to be immoral as well as politically ineffective. It's become almost surreal with the amount of violence and disrespect that has become commonly accepted in relation to politics. I fear that this will become the norm, or that things will escalate even further. I hope very much that it does not.

The Most Diverse Country and its Political Representation.

The United States of America is the most ethically diverse country by population. However the government is not diverse at all. Countries around the world have more diverse governments than the U.S. A country that is roughly 50% female has had no female leaders and a congress that is 81% male.

Politicians in the U.S. serve a wide assortment of different minority groups. Each group has its own needs; Mexican immigrants require different things than disabled people. When we have a government that is mostly white upperclassman we aren't really able to get any other perspectives besides a white upper class male's.
Part of this problem is that the voting turnout in the United State's is really low. But this is usually because they feel forgotten buy their government.

Another part of the problem is that both women and people of color face much more prejudice than their white male candidates. There are even recent examples of this happening during the current election campaign with Clinton and the past two with President Obama. Hillary Clinton has faced so much hate from the media on her appearance that male candidates would have never even thought of receiving. Trump has also taken advantage on the fact that she is the woman by saying she is not well suited or "does not have stamina."  Obama has been called racial slurs, and many people even claim that he was not even born in the U.S. 

The Literal Demonization of Hillary Clinton

In a recent advertisement, "Shut It Down", put out by the Trump-supporting Make America Number One PAC, the creators use a variety of visual and auditory techniques in order to enhance their ethos based argument that the Clinton Foundation and Hillary herself are entirely corrupt and unsuitable for the presidency. The background music, flashing words, and lexicon used in the ad create a sense of fear or trepidation about Hillary, which enforces the negative attack on her character.

The most noticeable thing about the ad is probably the background music, which consists of the soundtrack to an opera that could only be set in Hell. It's foreboding, loud, frantic, and downright terrifying. On top of this, the words on the screen are flickering and glitching, and are laid over a background of flashing lights that look like fire.

If these borderline-demonic visuals weren't enough to make the viewer fear for their life at the mention of Hillary's name; the word choice within the ad clinches the deal. The ad is a negative attack on Hillary's morality, calling out her corruption as a political candidate. The ad calls on Republicans and Democrats alike in order to prove her corruption, showing that the accusation is not biased, but instead common knowledge. Apparently, everyone knows how immoral Hillary is.

Of course, the word corrupt frequents the screen, but what I found more surprising was the use of the word "bedevil". Yes, bedevil. It certainly enhances the attack on Hillary's character by equating her actions with those of Satan himself, and since America is a majority Christian nation, it plays a bit into pathos and people's religious fear of sin.

This ad against "Crooked Hillary" uses mainly ethos in order to make Hillary look corrupt and unsuitable for the Presidency. This argument is enhanced by the video techniques that make the ad appear terrifying and even hellish, and the religious word choice that associates the Hillary campaign with the devil and sin.

Would You Rather Have a Politician or a Pawn in the Presidency?

I will not be of voting age come November, though if I was I would be voting for Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. I do not feel that she is a perfect person, nor a perfect candidate. I do not expect her to be perfect in office and never make a mistake. What I do expect is for her to do an infinitely better job than if Donald Trump gains the white house.

To be completely blunt, the man has no clue what he's doing. He's lied his way to the Republican nomination, and I'm sure he will keep up those tendencies in office. He's personally attacked just about every minority group in America, and then proceeded to claim he never did. He hides his tax returns and brags about skimping the national system in order to enrich himself as though cheating the government is exactly what a government-hopeful should be doing. He's uncivil and has no idea how to act like a real politician. I doubt that he would have any idea how to deal with a crisis, though he'd certainly be great at not thinking through his decisions and causing them. His character is the exact opposite of what I would look for in an official.

Hillary certainly has her flaws - the email scandal, for example - but the fact of the matter stands that she has experience and knows how to act. She knows how to watch her mouth and how to remain respectful. She hasn't actively offended people of color, women, and people with disabilities. She hasn't proposed and encouraged a frightening tracking system for all people of the Islamic faith in the country. I can trust her to remain calm and make professional decisions even in dire circumstances. I trust that she will make decisions that benefit the country as a whole, not just her personal interests or beliefs.

I know that Hillary will not act perfectly. I would vote with her knowing fully that she will take actions that I won't agree with. I would vote for her knowing that she will make mistakes in office that may be drastic. I will vote for her, despite the inevitable drawbacks, because I will not feel safe if Donald Trump is in charge. We will not have a president; we will have a pawn in office - influenced and provoked to make rash statements as easily as a leaf blows off a tree during a tornado. I would vote for Hillary because the alternative is a nightmare that will only end in worse conditions for the majority, if not all, Americans.

What A Show: Donald vs Hillary

The first presidential debate for the 2016 election was quite the spectacle. Expected to be one of the most viewed television broadcasts of all time, it surely put up with an astounding 71.5 million watchers live according to the New York Times.

Throughout the debate, both candidates went back and forth arguing as well as throwing some jokes in here and there which I can respect, but that doesn't make a better debate. The debate was riddled with interjections from the audience, insults between candidates, and a lack the presidential feel you may expect from a debate (but you might have expected it here). From my perspective however, the debate had a clear winner. Hillary won the first presidential debate.

The day after the debate, my history teacher Mr. Martin put it perfectly; Both candidates had something to prove, and Hillary was the only one to accomplish her goals. In the election you expected Trump to be himself, loud, insensitive, and prideful. While he didn't insult anyone too much, he still displayed the big thing everyone had a problem with. He still didn't fit the mold as presidential. Hillary was expected to preach the same things she always had and be a new robotic Obama clone. She however came to the debate calm and stern, while also keeping the mood lighter to not stick out as mechanical debating machine compared to the arrogant joker next to her. She also kept a professional attitude and only insulted or interrupted Trump a few times, which can't be said about Trump's performance. Trump did excellently for the first ten minutes or so of the debate, but soon cracked and devolved into his normal persona. Hillary kept her presidential attitude on throughout the whole display, earning her the victory for the first debate.

There's another option?

No one saw this coming, Trump, and another Clinton. Hillary has tried to get into office before and it simply didn't work. Trump, well he is just a business man and that's about all he is good for. They are both on such opposite ends of the spectrum, there is never any over lap, or shared opinions.

In today's society it's either republican or democrat, you choose one and live by it. When I started taking some interest in politics for the first time, this all confused me so much. How could the entire population of America be divided into only two categories? Why is there no in between, a best of both worlds? 

That's when I came across the third parties, I researched what each of them stand for, and it turns out there is a sort of middle ground, the Libertarian party. They generally believe in individual rights, a small and transparent government, they are pro-second amendment, they're for free health care and so much more. The libertarian candidate in the 2016 presidential election is Governor Gary Johnson, he finds importance in, but not limited to, the environment, discrimination, immigration, and education. 

So, this presidential election, I will vote for the underdog, Gray Johnson, who stands for those whose values and opinions are more well rounded and not so cut throat. I choose to not settle for who I think would do less harm between Hillary or Trump. I choose to think beyond the two party system - I choose to recognize that their are others who have a plan to fix our country's problems.

Fear caused by ¨football¨

http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2016/?adv=Football


In this advertisement the codes that control nuclear war are represented by a football. This is done because they relate the codes to a football game by saying during the crucial moments of the game only the trusted and proven can touch the ball and only the president can hold these codes, so they should be in hands of the trusted and proven. In this ad they try to invoke fear into the viewers and show them clips of who Donald Trump is, they show clips of him saying " I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars on my own. I'm really good at war. I love war." By doing this they are appealing not only to logos but also to ethos because the statements that he says can negatively affect his reputation when put in a video dealing with war. In the context of the video it makes you think about if this is the type of man you will trust with the possibility of nuclear war after he stated that he loves war. Not only did he state that he loves war but when he was asked about the possibility of war he already had part of his plan to include nukes and he felt strong about that answer, so the true argument of this ad is, is Donald Trump the man that you will trust with such a powerful tool?

Does Rap Have Meaning?

In the song, “One man can change the world” by Big Sean, he talks about how his grandma encouraged him that he, by himself, could change the world. Rap in our culture has become a very common form of music in America. But most of this music has little to no meaning. But Big Sean has somehow found a way to connect meaningful lyrics to the popular culture of rap. Big Sean’s song “One man can change the world” gives insight to low income communities, as well as how cities are in dire need of help, while at the same time that arguing that one man can indeed “change the world”.

Big Sean shows insight to low income communities in the first verse of the rap. In line three of verse one, Big Sean says “Back on the mattress, Starin' at the ceilin' tryna connect the dots…”. This line shows that life in low income communities is often confusing and disorienting, while at the same time referring to the physical features in the house he was in. Most houses in low income communities have what are called popcorn ceilings, ceilings that look like they have little spikes on them, which is what Big Sean is referring to in this line. He also says “My, my step brother used to flip them bags outside the crib like it was trash day”. This illustrates that most low income communities are dominated by drugs and violence.

Another fact that Big Sean illustrates in his rap is that major advancements need to be made in order to rebuild the community mentioned in the previous verse. In line 4-5 of verse two, Sean says, “Where I'm from I swear their broke, they need way more than the cast”. This line illustrates that people in his home town of Detroit are not just physically hurt, but mentally as well. Something as simple as a cast will not be enough to repair the damages made, but more will have to be done. In the next line, Sean again refers to Detroit, saying “We need more than what you (Jim Carrey) have and then we need more than that”. At this time, Jim Carrey’s net worth was some where near 150 million dollars, while the city of Detroit was in 18 billion dollars of debt. Sean is expressing his anger and discontent with people who know that places in America need help, but put on a blind eye to save costs.

Sean also argues that, contrary to popular belief, one man can change the world. In the opening hook of the song, Sean says “...Remember one thing. That one man can change the world…” In the world today, people usually can not do many things without the help of some one else. Sean is saying that he believes that people can do amazing things without the help of others. At the end of the first verse Sean says, “What you know bout' wakin' up everyday like you on a mission?” This shows that he believes many people have no clue what it means to wake up every day, and be determined to make a difference in the world. It also shows that he believes that he can make a difference in the world, which shows that he believes that he, by himself, can make a difference.

In Big Sean’s song “One man can change the world” gives insight to low income communities, as well as how cities are in dire need of help, while at the same time that arguing that one man can indeed “change the world”. This can be seen in the way that he spits lines about his house as a child, how his home town of detroit is in dire need of help, and how he believes the people need to step up and make a difference in the world. Our parents might not understand rap, and how deep it can be.

Welcome!

Welcome to the weblog for our American Literature class. Here's the place we will be continuing conversations from class and starting new ones. We'll be discussing and debating current events, historical controversies, and literary conundrums. We might even see a little poetry.

So, what's a blog? And how will we be using it class? For information on blogging and how to join and post to our blog, see "All About Blogging."

We're looking forward to a great year.

Make sure you check your e-mail for your invitation to join the blog. Also – and this is very important – the first step you should take after you accept the invitation is to edit your user profile so that you control how your identity and your communication preferences.  Click on the pull-down menu next to your name in the upper right corner of the browser and click on “Blogger Profile.” Then click on “Edit Profile.”

You can fill out as much of it as you want, but the only requirement is -- under “Identity” -- make sure your “Display name” is your first name and last initial only -- so we provide some anonymity while still allowing your classmates and teacher to be able to identity who you are. For example, change “Bernie Heidkamp” to “Bernie H.”

No Easy Answers On Immigration

America is a paradox of a country. English settlers came here seeking wealth and religious freedom, and bullied their way across a swath of land until their domain reached from coast to coast. However, despite this, American policy has often treated immigrants very poorly. Even back in the 1800s, Irish immigrants were consistently treated terribly by their fellow Americans. Some version his has been reflected across every ethnicity- as "whites" were starting to become the minority, people began to consider the Irish "white" for the first time. This happened with Germans and Jews, too, and who's to say it won't happen to Hispanic or Arab citizens? But each time, the majority has to find some new, frequently poor minority to pick on. Frequently, these groups are made mostly of immigrants.

It's more complicated than that, though. The greater concern is that of illegal immigration, and more specifically, what to do with the vast number of illegal or undocumented immigrants currently living in the US. Doing nothing is bad for everyone, but there's no efficient way to get rid of them, so we're stuck in the middle while everyone runs around trying to figure out how to deal with unexpected tenants. The secret is, no one really knows. Look at Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, two prominent political figures and sons of immigrants, quarrel back and forth.

Both of those men have "plans". Donald Trump has a "plan" to build a wall and deport a lot of people. But none of it is backed by any true evidence- it's all just theorizing and conjecture. America's situation is so unique, so unprecedented- a country literally built entirely by immigrants, who moved here and conquered "illegally", now spending a large amount of time trying (and to some extent failing) to figure out how to kick out the illegal immigrants. My theory is this- someday, living in the US as a Hispanic or Arab won't be twice as hard as being white, and that will be the day when the number of illegal immigrants finally drops. In the meantime, maybe we should just leave undocumented immigrants alone.

Donald Trump's Animosity Towards Immigrants

Donald Trump is known for his anti-immigration views. He is an advocate for closing U.S. borders and has stated his dislike for immigrants a numerous amount of times. Unsurprisingly, he targets immigrants in his speech during the launch of his presidential campaign. Trump utilizes pathos in his spiel to rally Americans against immigrants.

Trump begins with stating that the "U.S has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems." Trump is hoping to turn Americans against immigrants by using pathos to evoke anger and a sense of unity from his audience. The wording of this sentence deems the U.S. as weak, and suggests that other countries are violating America by "dumping" immigrants into U.S. territory. The rhetoric used here is effective because it implies that other nations view the U.S. as inferior which causes Americans to unite on a common ground of hatred. Trump then further says that the immigrants entering the U.S., from countries like Mexico, are not "good people." He states,"They're [Mexico] not sending their best...They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists..." Trump again uses pathos to evoke emotions of fear and anger. Fear of drugs, crime and rape corrupting American communities, when in reality, Trump's statement is not true and is a generalization. He hopes American's will view immigrants as a burden rather than a positive addition to American society. He goes on even further with his pathos method, by stating, "It's [immigrants] coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America and it's coming probably from the Middle East." Trump is hoping to evoke even more fear from his audience through his last statement. Given the U.S.'s rocky relationship with many Middle Eastern countries and the looming threat of ISIS, Trump hopes to scare American's into believing that immigrants are terrorists and are a threat to America. 

Donald Trump and his Wall of Ethos and Pathos

Donald Trump has become known for his extreme plan for immigration. Trump blames illegal immigrants for the bulk of America's problems from violence to the economy. From building a wall to the deportation of eleven million people, Trump uses the rhetorical tools of ethos and pathos to make his immigration plan make sense.

Trump uses ethos throughout his argument on immigration as a way to discredit illegal immigrants and his fellow candidates and to establish his own ethos as the solution to the problem of immigration in the United States. Trump focuses on the harm that illegal immigrants are causing in America through crime and stealing jobs from Americans. He makes all illegal immigrants seem violent, which is false, and that they are raising the violence in America. He also blames them for hurting the American economy by taking jobs away from American citizens. By doing this Trump is destroying the ethos of immigrants in America and making them appear dangerous to American society. Trump also targets his fellow candidates in saying that they are weak in terms of their immigration policies and that they would not accomplish what needs to be done if they were to be elected. By discrediting illegal immigrants and his fellow candidates, Trump is establishing his own ethos as the solution to the immigration problem. Trump believes that he is the person that can fix immigration and secure the nation's border and he establishes his ethos by making everyone else seems as if they can't. 

Trump also uses pathos in his argument on immigration in the United States. He uses pathos to rouse the emotion of fear in his audience over the harm that illegal immigrants are doing to America. He paints immigrants as those who are creating violence in America creating a sense of fear and nervousness. He also says that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs. By doing this he is arising pathos in the form of anger especially from those that are unemployed. Pathos becomes a tool that Trump uses to gain support for his extreme plan to stop illegal immigration. Trump and his plan to stop illegal immigration are based off of ethos and pathos that are supposed to persuade his audience that his extreme plan is the only one that will work. 

Trump On Immigration

Donald Trump is a presidential candidate for the Republican Party in the 2016 election. Infamously known as a racist with extreme ideas for the country, Trump uses an appeal to pathos and an appeal to nationalism to help his argument.

Donald Trump believes that we should deport all undocumented immigrants to help better America as a country. In a recent interview he specifically targets Mexicans.

Here, Trump uses the rhetoric, in particular, an appeal to pathos to convince Americans that Mexicans are bad people. He says "They [Mexico] aren't bringing their good people here. They aren't bringing you [American citizens]." By saying this Trump is appealing to the emotions of American citizens, making them feel better about themselves to have an inferior look down on Mexicans. Trump is also inferring that his audience are all hard workers. This gives his potential voters a good feelings about not only themselves, but Trump as a president. Trump also uses inclusive words like "you" "we" and "us." These words appeal to a strong sense of nationalism. They make his American audience feel as though Trump cares about them dearly. This rhetoric is effective when persuading voters to vote for you. 

Trump Against Cruz

In continuation of their hostility, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, attacks Ted Cruz in his recent immigration advertisement. In Trump's "Clear Difference" ad, Ted Cruz is shown at his worst where he is stumbling over his words and is fickle about his immigration stance. Trump, however, is perfectly clear and collected, sharing his opinion on immigration, such as securing the borders. He appeals to the American people by describing the losses they've experienced because of the illegal immigrants and he utilizes ethos by degrading Cruz in order to build up his own character.

At the beginning of the campaign advertisement, snippets of an interview with Cruz play while banners displaying the accusations "Pro-Amnesty" and "Pro Immigration" appear over them. Between these clips of Cruz, comments such as "What is he talking about?" and "Yeah, right Ted" prominently flash. The combination of these two aspects describe Trump's low opinions of Cruz, which he uses to strengthen his own stature. By attacking the second leading Republican candidate, Trump's reputation and position seem more appealing, thus gaining himself voters. An interview of Trump proudly discussing his viewpoint on immigration then follows the attacks on Cruz. To appeal even more upstanding, there is uplifting and patriotic music playing in the background of his interview.

Throughout this interview, Trump uses particular diction such as "we" and "our" to unite the Americans against the immigrants causing "tremendous damage" to the country. By saying these specific words, he is building the people up to support his platform of "securing the borders" and, to overall, vote for him. All in all, Trump's "Clear Difference" advertisement attacks Cruz to build up his own character and then unifies the audience for secure borders.

McCain Utilizes Ethos and Camera Techniques

In John McCain's 2010 advertisement on illegal immigration titled, "Complete the Danged Fence," McCain argues that he will unite all levels of law enforcement (troops, local, state, and federal) in order to stop illegal immigration into Arizona. McCain also states that he wishes to build a fence around the southern border of the United States to also fight illegal immigration. In his advertisement, McCain appeals to ethos by employing the use of a police officer in order to legitimize the belief that his political views are what are best for America. McCain also utilizes bright lighting and close up camera shots in order to give the advertisement a personal feel and to make his audience feel secure in his ideas.

As McCain is walking along the border of Arizona and Mexico, he is alongside a police officer. The officer comments on McCain's plan, saying that it is "perfect" and towards the end of the advertisement, the officer says to McCain, "you're one of us." Law enforcement is often viewed as reliable authority: people you can trust and count on to have your best interest and safety in mind. By associating himself with the authorities, McCain enhances his credibility as a man individual's can trust and count on. Also, by having the officer say that McCain's plan is the right plan, McCain's ideas appear to be on the side of the nation and seem to have the best interest of the people. McCain utilizes law enforcement in order to enhance his position as a man who can be counted on and a man who wants to keep America safe.

McCain utilizes various film techniques throughout his ad in order to make himself authoritative and dependable. Throughout the advertisement, the shot is often close up to McCain's face. This close up shot makes the advertisement seems more personal. It almost puts the audience into the advertisement and makes them feel as if they are walking alongside McCain and the officer. By making the audience feel apart of the advertisement, McCain creates the illusion that he is directly addressing the fears and needs of advertisement audience members. As well as using camera angles, McCain also utilizes bright lighting to add a positive and secure note to the advertisement. As McCain is talking about his plan regarding illegal immigration, the bright lighting makes McCain's plan appear secure and with good intentions. The bright lighting also makes audiences feel optimistic and makes McCain appear reliable. 

In his advertisement, "Complete the Danged Fence," McCain utilizes an appeal to ethos and camera techniques in order to make himself appear empathetic, trustworthy, and optimistic. McCain encourages his advertisement viewers to support his plan to unite law enforcement and to build a fence between the United States and Mexico in order to fight illegal immigration in Arizona. 

Rhetoric in Film Techniques

As shown by the Iowa caucuses last week, Trump's biggest opponent is Ted Cruz in the 2016 presidential race. This attack ad, created by Trump's campaign team, charges Cruz with inconsistency in his immigration policy. However, the ad is mostly made effective through the editing and sound of the video. 

The excerpt from an interview with Ted Cruz is on a television screen, making him seem distant and impersonal. Behind the television, the background is dark and grimy, reminding a viewer of a dirty floor. The text is surrounded by a dark shade of red which is often associated with blood or death. Slow, eerie music is played during the video of Cruz stuttering and looking generally flustered. The editing goes even further by cutting off Cruz before he is able to explain or justify his support of an immigration reform bill.

To contrast the seemingly menacing Cruz, Trump appears on the screen. The video of Trump is full screen and it seems like he is talking directly to the audience. The grim background is gone and the text is surrounded by a sky blue color, often associated with optimism and progress. The music is characteristic of hopefulness and patriotism. Trump seems self-assured, powerful and ready to be our leader, all without even listening to what he is actually saying. 

The real rhetorical devices of campaign ads are not often in what they say, but how they characterize the candidates through various filming techniques. Sound, colors and composition all contributed to the effectiveness of this campaign ad. If only voters could see through what he's actually proposing for the United States.