Bush the Conservative p. 9
The next speech follows this pattern fairly closely. The President makes a statement of economic theory as a factual basis to justify his previous actions. The second part invokes both the emotional turmoil of terrorism with a repeated statement of this economic theory. Yet the speech can only be said to be targeted at a group if the entire American population is considered to be the group. This stretches the meaning of the group-based argument so far as to make it meaningless.
It is interesting that the President continues to use “tax relief” in a repetitive manner. As noted previously, “relief” has some latent emotional appeal. Pairing it with, and sandwiching it around, a reminder of terrorist attacks must be said to bring that latency forward to some degree. The result is another blending of persuasion and propaganda that doesn’t fall neatly into either category because of the full context of the message.
The final formal speech is the 2004 State of the Union Address. The three short quotes taken from this speech show a move back into formal persuasion. Again, it is not pure persuasion based on irrefutable facts, but on economic theory blended with facts. There is notable repetition of “tax relief” and “stronger”. The latent emotional appeal of these words, however, does not seem to be tapped. Rather, they seem to be used as economic terms rather than emotional appeals.
In this small sample of formal speeches, then, there is a clear predilection for the use of persuasion based on a blend of economic theory and vague economic facts. The most commonly repeated phrase is “tax relief” with “recession” and “economic growth”, in some form, being used in close proximity. Part of this is simply necessity. The President is trying to gain support for tax cuts, past and future. The persuasive way to do this is to show “tax relief” has saved the economy from “recession” and further “tax relief” is needed to ensure “economic growth”. These are the political keywords used for a formal appeal for support of lower taxes. True to the theory, a tendency to shut off commentary when used can be somewhat inferred from them. In short, it is not surprising that the President would use theoretical and logical arguments before audiences that are at some level elite enough to understand the economic theory he is espousing.
Go on to Page 10
It is interesting that the President continues to use “tax relief” in a repetitive manner. As noted previously, “relief” has some latent emotional appeal. Pairing it with, and sandwiching it around, a reminder of terrorist attacks must be said to bring that latency forward to some degree. The result is another blending of persuasion and propaganda that doesn’t fall neatly into either category because of the full context of the message.
The final formal speech is the 2004 State of the Union Address. The three short quotes taken from this speech show a move back into formal persuasion. Again, it is not pure persuasion based on irrefutable facts, but on economic theory blended with facts. There is notable repetition of “tax relief” and “stronger”. The latent emotional appeal of these words, however, does not seem to be tapped. Rather, they seem to be used as economic terms rather than emotional appeals.
In this small sample of formal speeches, then, there is a clear predilection for the use of persuasion based on a blend of economic theory and vague economic facts. The most commonly repeated phrase is “tax relief” with “recession” and “economic growth”, in some form, being used in close proximity. Part of this is simply necessity. The President is trying to gain support for tax cuts, past and future. The persuasive way to do this is to show “tax relief” has saved the economy from “recession” and further “tax relief” is needed to ensure “economic growth”. These are the political keywords used for a formal appeal for support of lower taxes. True to the theory, a tendency to shut off commentary when used can be somewhat inferred from them. In short, it is not surprising that the President would use theoretical and logical arguments before audiences that are at some level elite enough to understand the economic theory he is espousing.
Go on to Page 10
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home