|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: On Hyperbole in American Political Discourse... |
 |
|
My thread responds to threads such as this one or this one
I teach my freshman students that no matter what they hear in current events, it has happened before, and multiple times at that, in American history -- especially the hyperbole denouncing the President as "satanic," a threat to the American Constitution, or, indeed, a threat to the American way of life more generally. An excellent way to make early-American history relevant to the present day.
Crises or perceived crises tend to provoke hyperbolic discourse and allegations. Seems to be normal in the American political discourse.
Start with the anti-Federalist position, for example. When the Federalists proposed the United States Constitution in the late-eighteenth century, the antiFederalists alleged they were ceding all power to a tyrant and an army that would destroy democracy and subject the people to permanent martial law.
See the antiFederalist Papers here
One of the best examplars, by the way, is antiFederalist Paper #74: "The President as Military King." It begins like this...
| PHILADELPHIENSIS wrote: |
| Before martial law is declared to be the supreme law of the land, and your character of free citizens be changed to that of the subjects of a military king -- which are necessary consequences of the adoption of the proposed constitution -- let me admonish you in the name of sacred liberty, to make a solemn pause... |
See the Federalist Papers here
Consider the following examples as well.
See this anti-Jefferson political cartoon
Note that President Thomas Jefferson's opponents showed him in league with Satan. They had been drinking alcohol and, together, they aimed to topple and destroy the Republic that Presidents George Washington and John Adams had created. An American Eagle screeched or breathed fire to stop them -- all to no avail.
See this anti-Jackson political cartoon
Note that President Andrew Jackson's opponents depicted him as a tyrant, "King Andrew I," who destroyed and trampled on the Constitution.
Other presidents have drawn similar hyperbolic criticism. Indeed, many presidents have -- as President William J. Clinton's supporters might appreciate. In any case, something to consider when hearing President George W. Bush's opponents employ the same hyperbolic devices against him ("Bush I" and "Bush II," or the many references to Fascism and Naziism, for example). Seems to represent a norm of some sorts regards how many Americans express disagreement.
I realize that today's discourse has become so polarized that many will interpret this as my defending W. Bush. That is not my intention. However, lo que ser�, ser�. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When you discuss the issue of hyperbole in American discourse AS IF you stand on some higher ground, how can anyone take you seriously?
I posted on another thread examples from the first 8 of 11 threads where your first post in the thread OR your first post in response to me (with one other person as a further examplar) was filled with bilious rhetoric, falsifications, and was, in every case, an attack of the poster and not the post. In no case did you even address the issues of the thread, if memory serves.
So, what then, is your point? I am trying to address your intent, but what is your intent? That American dialogue, including yourself, needs refinement? That others should follow your lead? That history is replete with rhetoric, so who cares? To paint all who oppose Bush as accusers of Bush being a Satanist?
And one wonders, if you are going to address the hyperbole vs. Bush (in discussing American discourse), how do you NOT address the hyperbole of Bush vs. most of the country in denouncing them as cowards? (How else can one characterize "cut and runners?") How do you not address, "...axis of evil..." and "...bring it on..." (the latter of which created a five-fold increase in deaths among American forces in the month after it was stated)?
Are we to assume your's is an innocent post given these glaring omissions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YoshaMazov
Joined: 10 May 2007
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: On Hyperbole in American Political Discourse... |
|
|
You talk about how the anti-federalists "alleged they were ceding all power to a tyrant and an army that would destroy democracy and subject the people to permanent martial law."
And you know what this rhetoric and caution got them? The Bill of Rights. Without the anti-federalists our nation, in all likelihood, wouldn't have Freedom of Speech, Religion or Press, cops could enter our houses with no reason, and, of course, a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" couldn't carry firearms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
England doesn't have a written constitution yet they do just fine in those departments. The spirit of the times is much more powerful than parchment. Look at how the supreme court twists in its wind.
I like the Bill of Rights but I don't think it is really what stands between us and tyranny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YoshaMazov wrote: |
| You talk about... |
Yosha: did George Washington become a tyrant-king and then build an army to suppress democracy in America? Did Thomas Jefferson make a deal with the Devil, Satan, the Fallen Angel, and then destroy the government? Did Andrew Jackson really rip up the Constitution, literally walk on it, and then declare himself "Andrew I" -- imperial robe and all?
My point is a simple one: this discourse is hyperbolic and it occurs throughout American history. And today is no different.
People have let their emotions get the better of them, again, and at the same time, they have abandoned reason.
W. Bush will retire from office and all of this screaming will likely cease after January 2009 -- just as it has countless times before. And America's democratic system will continue to exist and grow and adapt as it always has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| And America's democratic system will continue to exist and grow and adapt as it always has. |
So, you don't believe systems can collapse? Things can only get better? Do you think the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Khans, the Chinese Emperors, the Romans, the Brits, the Aztecs would all agree with this premise? Things never "fall down and go 'Boom!'", eh?
The Dark Ages, for example, never happened? The Mongol Empire never fell? Britania still reigns supreme? The Spanish Crown still flies it's flag over Brazil and much of the rest of Central and South America, does it?
That's a very cheery proposition.
While some of the aforementioned empires fell from competition, most, it can be argued, fell as much from their own excesses - whether they be hedonistic, imperial or otherwise - as from competition.
So, tell us all how the US is exempt from these examples of hubris, over-reach and competition? Some might say the US is already the shortest-lived hegemon in history. We've been the acknowledged hegemon for all of 1.5 decades and are already being caught up to. If you want to be generous and say the Soviet Union was the straw puppet it seems to have been, the US has still only "reigned" for 50 or so years and is already in decline relative to the rest of the world.
For example, at the end of WWII the US economy equaled fully 50% of the entire world economy. At this time, the US holds something on the order of 20 to 25 percent of that economy. According to some, China is poised to overtake the US within decades.
Let's add in that many argue the US may never recover from the ill will created over the last six years, in particular. (You are wlcome to disagree, but you are very likely utterly mistaken. Simple sociological and psychological observations will tell you trends in human behavior will carry some momentum, and a thing shorn of its mythology rarely ever recovers it.) How might the US when we have people, yourself included, calling out to all and sundry that there is no wolf at the door? There are, indeed, clothes on the king? If we live in an era when the president has th powers of a king, and they are writ into law, permanently, how can we expect others to take us seriously? When we have given our freedoms away without so much as a whimper, how can we be regarded as a bastion of freedom and democratic rule?
While you may well get lucky and end up being right that the clear thinking will, indeed, reclaim their birthright as free people (I certainly hope so, and hoped mightily before the elections), where is the evidence this is the case? The Dems have been in power for nearly five months and none of the worst of the Bush administration's and the Rubber Stamp Congress' breaches have been repaired. Perhaps your argument is that they ar waiting to gain the White House and clear majorities in 2008 (even though you oppose this)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YoshaMazov
Joined: 10 May 2007
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| YoshaMazov wrote: |
| You talk about... |
Yosha: did George Washington become a tyrant-king and then build an army to suppress democracy in America? Did Thomas Jefferson make a deal with the Devil, Satan, the Fallen Angel, and then destroy the government? Did Andrew Jackson really rip up the Constitution, literally walk on it, and then declare himself "Andrew I" -- imperial robe and all?
|
George Washington only assumed the presidency begrudgingly. He wanted to spend his time retired at Mt. Vernon, and reluctantly sought the power only after realizing how deeply flawed the Articles of Confederation were. You (or rather Hater) question how important a written document is to the stability of a country. The AoC was our first constitution, yet it did not call for a strong enough central government, and thus it failed. Our representatives preemptively dissolved our government to prevent an almost certain total collapse.
And, of course, Washington had the Bill of Rights.
Jefferson, as we all know, was quite a staunch Anti-Federalists (later day Anti-Federalists were referred to as Jeffersonians). Madison and he were largely responsible for the Bill of Rights. Again, he (and Madison) never would have attempted to trample on the Bill of Rights.
Fiery rhetoric shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's strongly worded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yosha: I am well aware of early-American history and the Articles of Confederation. And I am now convinced that you and I are not even discussing the same thing. But I will respond to this...
| YoshaMazov wrote: |
| Fiery rhetoric shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's strongly worded. |
But we should always understand that that is all that it is: "fiery rhetoric." Hyperbole and then some. Unreasonable, emotional, and just plain loud. And not to be taken literally by any means.
And we see it everytime someone wants to oppose a president.
I take it, by the way, that you acknowledge the reality that Washington did not in fact establish martial law and then effect a tyranny, that Jefferson made no pacts with Satan and did not in fact destroy the government, and that Jackson did not in fact tear the Constitution to shreds, dance on it, and then coronate himself... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The articles of confederation didn't fail because only because they lacked a strong central government, but also because the people were not united behind them. The Constitution ultimately passed because it was able to craft a political solution that gave elites in all states what they saw as advantages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Give me liberty, or give me death.
I have but one life to give for my country...
The Boston Tea Party...
Gopher would have us believe the US won it's independence at a tea party followed by a game of croquet and topped off with a little wine and cheese...
He likes the status quo... the curent one, that is. Or am I reading too much into it?
OK, I'll bite: we haven't had a revolution.
Oh, wait! Yes, we have!! All that fiery rhetoric about secession... so much water cooler chat! It came to naught!
Nor have we been run over by devils!!! You're right! No second coming, yet! Thus, there is NO POINT in speaking out loudly about the erosion of our rights or speaking as to where the road may lead if we do nothing!!!!
Pretending our current political structure owes itself to gentlemanly chats over cigars and cognac is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YoshaMazov
Joined: 10 May 2007
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Yosha: I am well aware of early-American history and the Articles of Confederation. And I am now convinced that you and I are not even discussing the same thing. |
Now that I go back and review everything that's been said, I too think we're largely talking about two different things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
