Here is a link to a video on youtube that I found to be emotionally charging.
Mr. Dean
The question of whether emotion is suitable for politics has been, once again, revisited since Howard Dean went into a tirade during his attempt to seek the Democratic nomination for president in the last election. So, can Americans tolerate an emotional candidate for president? Can we get behind a man or woman that is passionate about the duties of the office? I think so; however, that candidate must be positively charged (to steal a phrase from my days as a commercial electrician). George Campbell, in The Philosophy of Rhetoric, notes that there are some passions that "elevate the soul, and stimulate to action" (904). I would suggest that Dean could have been successful in rallying more votes if not for that one "wahoo" at the end of his tirade. Campbell writes, "Some (pathos) are naturally inert and torpid; they deject the mind, and indispose it for enterprise. Of this kind are sorrow, fear, shame, humility" (904). Dean's "wahoo" incited fear into the hearts of his audience and probably a little shame for supporting such a rampant wahooer. As we can see, not all emotional appeals are suitable for the political arena, especially the "wahoo." So, politicians beware of moving your crowds with such rhetorical devices.
*I'm adding this after the original post for those who might want to know the "right" way to show emotion during a charged rally (wink, wink):
The way Dean should have done it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A more cynical take (as I get older, the cynical take on things begins to seem more correct, but it ins't; it's just more cynical) on the question of emotion in politics is that there is in fact no room for genuine emotion, but only emotion that is packaged and staged by all of the PR people whom the candidate pays to make them look real (since they aren't real: what, you didn't know that the candidates aren't real people, but only televisual holograms, simulations? Read more Baudrillard!) Truths like these are easier to grasp if one watches the Daily Show instead of Network News. A few weeks ago, Hilary Clinton made the rounds on the Sunday Morning pundit shows and would laugh, as if high on nitrous oxide, after nearly every other question she was asked, even serious ones. When the Daily Show spliced all of her "laughs" together, it was clear how fake they were; one could just imagine that the theme all week with her PR specialists had been avoiding the Al Gore syndrome and appearing more natural. The best text anyone can read who wants to understand the American electorate and understand questions not only like why we elect presidents who run our country into the ground but also the question of why Americans actually don't want their candidates to show genuine emotion is "The Country Town" by Thorstein Veblen. The long and short of it is this: Americans know that George Bush is a New Englander and not a Texan and they know that his "regular guy" act is just that, an act. In other words, Veblen argues, Americans aren't naive fools a la "River City" denizens who are easily duped. The reason the Red State Americans vote for someone like Bush is precisely because he is not completely honest; Americans actually admire a shade of dishonesty, to a certain extent, because it betokens someone who "knows how to get things done" someone who can "finesse and finagle" his audience a little bit and stretches the truth if need be. These same Americans actually are suspicious of completely honest and straightforward types (how many Southern Baptists would be converted by a preacher who never sinned versus a preacher who had drunk, womanized, stolen, gone to jail and THEN was saved by Jesus?)--and now we are getting back to Howard Dean and the question of emotion in campaigns. I'll quit here. I think I've said enough for you to figure out why Howard Dean had to fail and why Hilary Clinton's laughs will never be her real laugh.
That was the infamous "scream"? I'd never seen it before--what a let down. The crowd was screaming all around him, and he finished his speech with a simple "Yeah!" I bet the people in the crowd were actually rallied by that emotion, and I don't know why it would have been such a turn off to others.
First, Steve, thanks for the Dave Chappelle link. Howard Dean, take note.
My first thought when we began discussing this in class a bit ago was, "What exactly did he do again?" I've seen so much political posturing since then that I forgot just how far Dean stepped over the line of propriety. Yeah, right.
I propose that a part of the backlash has to do with not his emotion but the fact that his emotion was expressed in a (for lack of a better word) "hillbilly- sounding" way. Had he shouted, "Yessss!" while pumping his fist, he might have sidestepped scrutiny. Even a heartfelt, "Woohoo!" might have fared better. Instead, his choice barely covered up a good-ole-boy YeeHaw.
We've certainly had a couple of southern gentlemen in the time I've been voting age: Carter and Clinton immediately come to mind. Not a yeehaw in sight, though. Politics just won't forgive anything that might say, redneck.
I agree with Landis that public political persona (say that 3 times fast) is constructed. We rarely, maybe never, see the real human being--we see what his/her handlers give us and hope we want to see. Emotion under those circumstances is dangerous because it could just blow the cover off a carefully manipulated facade.
Post a Comment