Assignment 4

I never thought I would say this about a Republican, but on a great deal of fundamental values and key issues, I agree with Ron Paul. I’m not a registered voter and never plan to be, so my opinion doesn’t matter much, but if I were to lend any real concern to the political climate of our country, Ron Paul would most likely be my choice.
I mention that I am a non-voter because, when it comes to political commentary, ethos is essential. And the bottom line is I don’t have any. When pundits bark about what’s wrong with the country, people like me are easy targets: I don’t watch the news, I don’t read newspapers, I don’t follow the issues, I’ll never attend a political rally, I avoid debates at all cost, I think all politically-savvy college students are just trying to get laid, I actively try to hit hippie protestors with my car, and worst of all, I don’t vote.
I have even less ethos as a blogger. I have never read a blog, never subscribed to a blog, could not tell you a single famous blogger’s name, and only got the internet in my home three months ago (after the guys at Circuit City explained me how to steal it from my neighbors). To make matters worse, I think bloggers are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to writers. The only thing I think is more worthless than a blog writer is a faithful blog reader. Whenever I even hear someone mention “blog” in normal conversation, I automatically think “douche bag.” All-in-all, I have no ethos as a political commentator and even less as an internet-opinion-poster. So stop reading here. Seriously. Stop.

Well, if you made it this far, then I successfully employed the same rhetorical strategy Ron Paul has used countless times during his Presidential campaign. I referred to this in my last post as the Everyman appeal.
Ron Paul does not want to be thought of as a politician; he wants to be your neighbor, your PTA carpooling buddy, your friend. He’s even still listed in his hometown’s phonebook. While Obama has a creepy middle-name, Hillary is a bulldyke, and John McCain tells more stories about “Charlie” than Roald Dahl, Ron Paul manages to sit under the radar as the underdog. Unfortunately the only time in America the underdog actually wins is when America is the underdog, and that only happened once, two-hundred-and-thirty-two years ago.

Ron Paul’s campaign is stalled at the moment as a result of John McCain’s acquisition of the Republican candidacy. Ron Paul is understandably not generating too much rhetoric these days. Instead, it seems appropriate to take a look back at how the craziest man in politics (since Strom Thurmond died) has found incredible grassroots success from both sides of the aisle.

Ron Paul has been sharpening his teeth on the executive branch for forty years, so an archived speech to examine his strange ethos could almost be picked at random, which is exactly what I did.

On February 13, 2007, Ron Paul gave a speech entitled “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq.” Even reading that title now, the groans from the House of Representatives can still be heard. The speech packs heavy appeals to logos and pathos, and in truth, is one of his better speeches. But instead of dissecting the politics and policies of Ron Paul, his rhetoric can also be useful when determining exactly what he thinks of himself.
And what candidates think of themselves is important. Hillary’s tear soaked confession about how hard the campaign trail is showed she thinks she is the most stressed candidate since FDR. Obama talking more about his mistakes with cigarettes than how he will fix Health Care shows he would rather be McGruff the Crime Fighting Dog than a straight-to-the-point politician. And McCain soliciting support from Bush shows he is not afraid to swallow his pride and ask the least-popular president of all time for an endorsement, even after the president accused McCain of being psychologically unfit to participate in government because McCain was tortured during warfare. Now I could see how voters would be torn when presented with such an all-star cast for Commander In Chief, but just for posterity and good measure, let’s see what Ron Paul thinks of himself.

In the “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq” speech, Ron Paul only says “I” twice.
The first is, “Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This is the first sentence of his speech. Ethos is typically about closing the distance between a speaker and audience, but not for Ron Paul. Just as I did with the whole I-don’t-vote-and-I-hate-blogs introduction, Ron Paul finds his ethos in remaining as far from his audience as possible. His audience, after all, is Congress; and does a real Everyman ever get to feel like Congress is a peer? No. So in order for Ron Paul to move closer to the voters, he has to move farther from the politicians. He actually removes himself entirely: “Congress and the administration use our fiat money.” In this sentence, Congress and the administration are on one side, and the generators of fiat money are on another. With the phrase “our fiat money,” Ron Paul declares he is on the side of the public.

The other use of “I” is, “I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars.” The rhetoric of this sentence is not so subtle, however, is much more admirable. Ron Paul is speaking on behalf of the people, which theoretically, is his job. Even more importantly, his representation is accurate. One trillion dollars is more money than most people can comprehend. Oprah and Bill Gates combined are not worth a trillion dollars. Fortunately, Ron Paul breaks down exactly what this cost means: “We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars.”

And finally, the persona which Ron Paul takes most pride in, is his public-informant position. Ron Paul uses his speeches to let the public know what’s going on in the more private wings of Washington. “The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.” Ron Paul does this in almost every speech; he tells on the government. He tells the public which money is going where for what. Usually it’s infuriating. But doesn’t that make Ron Paul look like a crook since he’s part of Congress too? No, that’s where his distance comes in. It’s the don’t-shoot-the-messenger principle. If Ron Paul wasn’t telling us, who would? Ron Paul is the public’s ear to the ground. He is our informant, dressed as a politician.

Ron Paul’s ethos slightly predicates on shock value; but it is more than that. The most shocking aspect of his persona is honesty. The American public isn’t sure how to take that. And while I may have wrecked my ethos as a political blogger by saying I don’t vote, Ron Paul knows how to use distance to strengthen his ethos. When Ron Paul speaks in front of Congress, the more steps he takes to further himself from his immediate audience, the closer he comes to the audience he really cares about.

Assignment 3

Ron Paul stepped in front of a New Hampshire crowd on January 8, 2008 to give his most disappointing speech to date. While his tirades against federal power are often as motivating as they are humbling, his speech entitled “Live Free Or Die” is his most blatant employment of tired semantics and textbook rhetoric.
Most voters, whether for better or worse, consider Ron Paul synonymous with “Washington Outsider.” True he’s been a congressman for forty years, yet he’s just never quite fit the bill. Aside from trying to deconstruct the federal government brick by brick, he is also guilty of the political blasphemy of admitting and apologizing when he is wrong. It is for these reasons that it is disheartening Ron Paul would construct a speech using several examples of false dichotomy.

False dichotomies are cheap. How many major political parties does the United States have? How many candidates after the primaries will have an honest shot at the presidency? Two is the magic number of false dichotomies. There are over a dozen political parties and even more candidates involved in the presidential race, but in this country after the primaries, only two will matter (and a quick heads up – Ron Paul will not be one of the two).
We expect false dichotomies from our mainstream politicians. It’s Hillary vs. Obama on the Democrats side, although some Conservatives see Clinton as a more viable Republican candidate than McCain. Either way, it’s always in twos. Hillary will first have to overtake Obama (which doesn’t seem likely), then she will have to overtake McCain (which seems even more unlikely). She will never face both men at the same time, since a race of three in politics is unheard of.
While our mainstreamers duke it out in the spotlight, Ron Paul, at times, seems to be the bigger man. But for the first time in this presidential race, Ron Paul took off his Better-Man Hat, and dove into the trenches of mudslinging and stale reasoning.

If Ron Paul’s audience were really as anti-Washington savvy as they claim to be, the tomatoes would have started flying after the line, “You only have two choices in the Republican Party Primary. You can vote for me or you can continue to see your country’s future squandered.” That’s right, Ron Paul actually announced that without him, America’s future would be squandered. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. First off, we have had a President for eight years that has done nothing but “squander,” and our country isn’t circling the drain just yet. And secondly, Ron Paul is a radical. And nothing proclaims a radical’s shoddy foresight like saying immediate change is the only avenue for improvement. Evolution is slow. Cultural evolution is even worse.
Ron Paul survived his first embarrassing line, only to immediately pontificate another. “Now, I’ll admit I’m not much of a politician. I’m not smooth, polished or particularly inspiring speaker but I don’t need to be…” Did Ron Paul steal Mitt Romney’s playbook? This is almost word-for-word Romney’s appeal to living outside the private sector. When will politicians realize no matter what they do, they will never be The Everyman. Archie Bunker was an Everyman. Edward Hopper was an Everyman. Drew Carey is today’s Everyman. Politicians are not. And nothing is more damning when trying to relate to someone than coming right out and saying I relate to you.

As stated before, the most impressive aspect of Ron Paul’s political career is his willingness to admit fault. When racist opinions appeared in his newsletters, he went on national television, affirmed that these allegations were true, and said 'Sorry folks, I don’t know how those got in there. I should be more careful about what I put my name on.' End of story. Incredible. He didn’t cry forgery. He didn’t say he was going to launch a formal investigation to uncover who was at the heart of these slurs. He just jumped on television in a grandpa-like sweater and said sorry.
Ron Paul makes mistakes. Totally forgivable. So as a Ron Paul fan, after hearing his horrific false dichotomy and his flat appeal to The Everyman, I just expected him to say 'Sorry folks. I didn’t realize this speech was so lame. Let’s see if I can make this right'. But no such luck. Instead, his false dichotomies only got worse.

“When I am elected I will bring our troops back home to their families. I will end this war.” That is not an option. In no way are there two clear-cut answers to our Iraq debacle, but immediate withdrawal would just be criminally irresponsible. A country cannot just walk away from an international quagmire. The war is beyond the point of pointless by now; but if we broke it, we have to fix it. Burning Iraq down, then saying Oops and going home is no way to save face. I understand Ron Paul’s concern for the troops and I would like my friends home as much as the next guy, but they made a mess and now they have to clean it up.
Forgive the sophomoric vocabulary, but idiotic is the only word I can think to describe Ron Paul’s next false dichotomy. “You want freedom? I support legalizing drugs and abolishing the IRS.” Now granted, I thought anarchy was cool too when I was fifteen and smoked pot, but sooner or later people are supposed to realize there is more to life than pissing off your parents. Ron Paul, with this dichotomy, actually suggests that illegal drugs and federal taxing are what’s really holding America back. I myself am really crossing my fingers for the right to drink and drive too. Of course that’s going to be difficult under Ron Paul’s direction since the government won’t be able to afford roads in the first place.
And for his finale, Ron Paul explained the real reason he’d make a good president. “You want honesty, integrity and commitment? I’ve been married to my lovely wife for 50 years.” That’s all it takes? My grandparents have been married for 60 years, so should I vote for them instead? Family values have nothing to do with being a good leader. Ben Franklin had three bastard children. God knows how many women JFK gave a tour of the White House to. And Bill Clinton certainly didn’t lead the United States into its greatest (and short-lived) economic surplus because he was a faithful husband. Ron Paul usually isn’t this short-sighted. Ron Paul is sharp on his American history and his international understanding of cultures. Why would he fall into such a generic mindset then?
Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner. The fact that he has been buried by the polls has not deterred him a bit. Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner, and is beginning to act like a frontrunner. It’s only a matter of time before he’s kissing babies and shaking Bono’s hand. Ron Paul was the people’s champion. But if this cookie-cutter speech, which shares its title with the creepiest license-plate slogan in the country, is any indication of what is up Ron Paul’s sleeve, it won’t be long before his grassroots candidacy is laid on the cooling board next to Ralph Nadar’s and Ross Perot’s, down at the political morgue.