TJP

Political Rhetoric

By Byron A. Ellis

March 06, 2008

Hillary claims that Obama is only speeches. The implication is that somehow she is the opposite, more than speeches. Nonetheless, like all the other candidates she also uses speeches to broadcast her messages.

In her speeches, however, she uses the Marxian methodology, which is a dialectical method focusing on the interplay of opposites to fuel contradictions in the mind of voters.

Using the interplay of opposites she was able to successfully sow the seed of contradiction in Ohioans regarding NAFTA, even though “her administration supported NAFTA.”

She was successful at deflecting her past support for NAFTA, which was championed by her husband’s administration, which now she proclaims to be hers.

NAFTA accelerated the decline of unionization by providing a conduit to transfer production to low wage labor markets. Thus, creating a high degree of structural unemployment in places like Ohio.

In spite of her past support for NAFTA, many Ohioans rewarded the Clintons for supporting the trade deal that sent their jobs to low wage labor markets.

The interplay of opposites is a key tool in the arsenal of the Republican Party. Karl Rove and the Republicans understood well its effectiveness and used it to fuel contradictions and confuse the electorate. It was also used to gain support for the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Inner contradictions allow leaders to put forth agendas that are often not in the best interest of those that they purport to represent. As a result, their agendas tend to create future states of regret for those that supported them.

For example, the current economic woes, high crude oil prices, are a direct result of Congress voting to give the Bush Administration authority to the invade Iraq.

The preemptive invasion destabilized the Middle East and led to rising energy prices, as well as an economic downturn.

Legislators, including Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the war, are directly responsible for the rising price of crude oil and its effect on the economy. Thus, their judgment on the war and its outcome was flawed

Nonetheless, Senator Clinton claims that she is capable of steering the economy, is not credible. If she understood the economy, she would have known, as Obama did, that an invasion would have serious adverse consequences on our economy.

The irony of the Clintons mastery of the interplay of opposites is that their "anything goes attitude" to gain the Democratic nomination for Hillary may destroy the Democratic Party and provide the presidency to the Republicans.

[ Home | Comments | Search | Post ]

POST COMMENT