Rhetoric quiz results…
Several days ago, in a post about Sen. Tom Daschle’s reaction to war and House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s response to Daschle, I presented this rhetoric “quiz”:
You must make a statement against a particular policy or action. Your opposition, however, may claim your statement gives comfort to a common enemy. How do you make your statement and avoid such criticism?
Part of my purpose in that entry was to criticize Hastert for nearly calling a U.S. Senator (and veteran) a traitor. No one should assume or believe that Hastert literally meant such a thing. Instead, his remark–like all such red herrings by any political faction–was calculated as an emotional response to Daschle’s equally emotional remarks. Such remarks make for good TV soundbites (and good quotes, too, because print reporters all to often allow themselves to be spoon-fed such remarks).
The entry drew much interesting discussion. And, as I mentioned, I gave this “quiz” to one of my rhetoric classes. It is important to note that the “quiz” is somewhat absurd because there is no way to say much of anything important without drawing criticism. And the “quiz” ignores the fact that Hastert’s response is just as calculated as Daschle’s remarks. But, in another important way, this “quiz” helped my students understand exactly the process of crafting political soundbites with a proper anticipation of likely opposition response.
Some Rhetorica readers offered their thoughts (see the comments). Here’s what some of my students came up with:
“War has always had winners and losers, but in the end we all have lost–a life, a loved one, and sometimes our souls. May we all find peace in the end.” –Jewell Phillips
“It is a tragic event that the final outcome of this debate is to be war. However, when all other diplomatic attempts have come to no avail, it is often the only method left to the madness.” –Beth Fraley
“In the spirit of the liberty we love, I am grieved that we seem to have no choice in this conflict; that those in whose power resolution lies have not done enough in the face of so solemn a responsibility as the maintenance of peace. –Ben Gardner
“I can only wonder that if our Founding Fathers were alive today, would they agree with the actions we are taking. And would they believe that this is the will of the great citizens of America? –Christian Stallings
No doubt about it, only Christian’s and my statements were actually critical of the war. I think that he did a fine job–for a liberal–of hitting the emotional switch so necessary to make rhetoric effective. His reference to the Founding Fathers and “the great citizens of America” were well-used and positioned. I’m looking forward to locking horns with him–if only he’d sit up in class.
Dr. Cline, in response to your absurd question, I offer a response perhaps even more absurd.
~ No man wishes to live in such times of darkness and trials as those we stand before today. And though no man can expect to be fully supported in his thoughts in actions, he must do as he sees best for himself and his country. Weather uniting in a movement towards peace or retaliating in the form of armed forces, to stand against the criticism of opponents for his beliefs and ideals is to know the true measure of a man. ~
Are you quoting?
Interesting response. It fits my “criticism be damned” position while at the same time allowing room for factional conflict.
Not quoting, in fact, the good professor might be interested to know that it was his rhetorical “quiz” that woke me from my pleasant sleep this morning at 1:30 with the sudden urge to write this.
Cool. Now if I could motivate my students that way…
In my case, it’s an overload of war news and not the Good Doctor that is giving me insomnia!