Written on: Bill Maher's Editorial "Mocking Bush is my patriotic duty," found at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/08/maher/ .
In this humorous editorial, Bill Maher argues that incessantly mocking and criticizing the President isn’t anti-nationalistic, as many would say. Quite on the contrary, it is his (and should be any American’s) patriotic duty!
President Bush’s foreign policy has generated such a negative and hostile attitude towards America worldwide, that by letting people out there know that not all Americans agree with the government’s current war efforts and that many of us are – indeed!— embarrassed by his notoriously stupid remarks, Maher is helping to attenuate the animosity towards our nation, so prominent since the invasion of Iraq. It might even make people sympathize with us, because they will realize that we, too, are victims of a nonsensical president.
Maher certainly makes use of rhetoric to convince his readers. Because he is not dealing with something that can be factually proven (i.e., it would be quite hard to objectively account for the exact effect that mocking the President has on foreigner’s perception of the country), his argument is based on what is probable and contingent— one’s view on the subject will essentially depend on how well Maher can construct his argument.
Emotional persuasion in this editorial is perhaps the most prominent among the three types. After all, humor is ever-present in his paragraphs, embedded in every small claim. Directed at the general American public, Maher connects with his audience by using a very particular sense of humor that is nonetheless common to both him and the audience. For example, he compares Bush to leg warmers and ‘Hootie and the Blowfish’ (for being “really popular for a few years and then almost overnight becom[ing] completely embarrassing”). The audience knows what he is alluding to and understands the joke: the author has formed a common ground with them. This is especially so because these allusions are so particular and non-universal. Maher assumes, for instance, that he shares with the reader a set of accepted truths (e.g.,that leg warmers are embarrassing, but were once admittedly fashionable).
And why is a common ground something important to establish? Well, for starters, it engages people in the writing, as if signaling that the article is directed to them. Further, it creates empathy between the audience and the author, making the former more likely to trust the latter’s claim. Finally, because the ability to make people laugh is, essentially, a gift, employing (good) humor in a piece of writing often generates admiration towards the writer, which potentially could make his claims more credible.
Maher makes use of analogies to prove a few of his points. In arguing that the invasion of Iraq benefits none of the parties involved and is not a solution to either country’s problems, he writes, “OK, my boot is in your ass, but I can't get it out, so I'm not happy, and it's in you, so you're not happy -- there's no exit strategy.” In another instance, he retorts Bush’s notorious belief that anyone who doesn’t support the war is supporting the terrorists by comparing the President to an exterminator who believes that anyone offering an alternate way to kill the vermin is instantly “for the rats”. These analogies are a useful tool because they provide a very visual imagery. And besides, they're awfully funny.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Helena does a fine job analyzing this piece by Bill Maher. I first read the paper and contemplated what his main purpose in writing this article could be. Concluding that he was not content with the way some people, opposing the Iraqi war, were being talked about, he retaliates by giving analogies and explaining how the oppositions actually support the troops. This touched home for me, obviously, because I completely agree with the political action of withdrawing the rest of my comrades-in-arms out of the middle East. But focusing back on the paper, Bill Maher I believe may have gone a little far insomuch by saying that to oppose the president and his actions is a "patriotic duty." This to me is not funny because I can think of far more productive uses and ways of being patriotic, for someone's time, than bad-mouthing the president and his campaign. But showing that Bill Maher can play on the emotional aspect of an idea, is also noted by Helena. To me, Bill was betting on hitting nerves about this topic and leading readers down an emotional roller coaster, they may have not even been aware of getting on.
However, Helena caught on to his purpose and tone of the paper. She explained how Bill viewed Bush's foreign policy and why terrorists may view Americans as "stupid" in relation to their leader. This is such a common topic within the United States that it could very well be considered a common ground. Talking about a topic that almost everyone can relate to is key in getting a message across (as Helena also points out about Bill's paper). A good understanding of the rhetoric within his paper continues with this topic of "foreigner's perception of [this] country." It would be difficult to prove how effective our president is on the minds and ideals of foreign nationals, and whether he is perceived to be a good representative of this nation or not.
Post a Comment