In the book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Fiorina argues that this idea of a “culture war” is one propagated by the media and that there is no war going on at all. His thoughts on this matter are that political candidates themselves are becoming more polarized and giving the false impression that the public as a whole is more polarized.
In the first chapter of the book Fiorina starts off by referencing numerous quotes by politicians and the media stating that there is a culture war going on in this country. These quotes aim to show a deepening rift between the American people. After presenting these quotes he states his argument that there is no culture war in this country. He argues that this idea of a culture war comes from selective media coverage and misinterpretation of data such as election returns. I think in this chapter Fiorina's ideas are pretty solid and set up a good base for him to argue his points throughout the rest of the book.
Chapter two is really the meat and bread of Fiorina'argument. In this chapter Fiorina tackles the hardest question against his idea of a culture war, “If there is no culture war why do so many people think there is one?”. The first part of his answer is that Americans are confusing closely divided with deeply divided. He brings up the statistic that in national elections the winning party wins with only 9% of the vote. Which at first glance seems to be pretty indicative of a very divided country. The way that Fiorina explains that these close elections are actually due to a normal population distribution. This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. We have a primarily two party system in this country and that two party system makes it very easy to skew data in such ...
... middle of paper ...
...ter also shows that acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise and even suggests that one day it won't even be considered a controversial issue. While I think this chapter is a strong point for the author to hit on I found it a bit repetitive. I understand that he's trying to hit another “controversial” issue and make it seem less controversial. I think the author would have been better off combining the last two chapters and maybe taking on a different type of issue like an issue of foreign policy or economic policy. Taking on a different type of issue would show that this normality of opinion does not only exist on social issue. I think proving this would cement his argument a lot better.
Chapter eight is about Bush's reelection to office. A lot of the speculation about the 2004 election was that Bush won the election because people agreed with his moral stances.
Both works provide valuable insight into the political atmosphere of American society, but vary greatly in their intended message, usage of persuasive method, projected audience, and choice of tone. One can see resemblance, however, in the fact that the authors of both articles strive to spark a reaction in their readers and encourage change. In that regard, while Hedges’
In it, Fiorina outlines an argument against the idea of a culture war by looking at party affiliation by states, how public opinion on hot button issues changed over time, and various explanations for why Americans are so hung up on the topic of polarization. While Fiorina makes a good argument, the evidence supporting the culture war is too powerful to explain away. Fiorina had several rational explanations for why Americans believe that the culture war is real, the most poignant one being the media, however I find it odd that he never mentioned the brain child of Al Gore, i.e. Fiorina would claim that this is confusing positions with choices in that individuals are voting for candidates that are closest to them on an ideological spectrum (2005). Therefore, when an individual votes, they are not necessarily voting for a perfect representation of their views, rather they are voting for the candidate that is most like them. This is a great rationalization as to how moderates would vote, however again the most partisan individuals are also the most engaged (Abromowitz and Saunders, 2008).
...ted her case coherently and effectively, she did not address all the concerns surrounding the issue of gender roles and homophobia. For instance, there is an argument for both homophobia and gender roles having a biblical origin, and the author did not mention it. Because of this, if the reader was a homophobic, and he or she deeply rooted his or her views in the bible, he or she would probably not be persuaded by Vàzquez’s essay. However, like a lawyer, covering the opposing side could prove destructive to his or her argument. Carmen Vàzquez’s goal was to show the reader that social reform was the only clear option and her essay accomplishes this coherently and effectively.
But why does the chasm keep growing? A few different theories call out the masses and the elites as being the principal actors in driving polarization. Fiorina says that the masses, or just average people, are not the ones that are polarizing. In fact, she thinks that it is the elites who are driving polarization as they attempt to stay as far away from the other side as possible and also as they get more involved in politics they are driven further to one side by their fellow elites and the party leaders. By better understanding this aspect of gridlock, we could also be able to see how much influence the leaders of the parties outside of Congress have on everything that goes on in D.C., and see how much of an influence the majority and minority leaders have on legislation.
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
Anna Quindlen focuses on how different our nation is. She talks about how big issues the United States used to face such as when the Irish and Italians of Boston feuded years ago. She also writes about current issues and groups that still don’t get along with each other, such as the “Cambodians and the Mexicans in California.”(Quilt pg.4) Anna Quindlen also focused on our Country’s diversity, and argues that our diversity is what
Corvino is right in defending the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very sound argument. Majority of the essay is spent pointing flaws in the opposition, rendering the opposing arguments null. I enjoy Corvino’s argument because by making all the opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: Homosexual sex is morally sound.
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and often avoided in conversation. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. Although disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. One supporter of this belief is Michael Levin, who strongly believes that homosexuality is highly abnormal and thus, undesirable. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in this essay.
Elazar, Daniel. "Explaining Policy Differences Using Political Culture." Reading. West Texas A&M University. Political Culture Handout. Dr. Dave Rausch, Teel Bivins Professor of Political Science. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < http://www.wtamu.edu/~jrausch/polcul.html.>
...n p.236) “ The result is a lack of communication about real problems and virtually no discussion of the real divide in American political life.” (Lakoff p.177)
...t?” (Butler Page 240). A human life is a human life. We are all made the same way and we all of the ability to make choices, we have an ability to learn, and to adjust to uncomfortable situations in order to maintain a mindset without prejudice. Society is as a whole is slowly learning this aspect of acceptance of gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Society is slowly creating laws for people of these sexual preferences in order to protect them.
In conclusion his article is highly ineffective due to his illogical arguments. While many of his hypotheses may be readily accepted by the audience, his attempt to reason others his approach is faulty. While his goal of empowering others with his same beliefs might be effective, he still misses with persuasion. Schulman's argument could be strengthened if he removes the statements regarding female sexuality in marriage as well as contraceptives. Finally he should actually discuss the view points of those who support homosexual marriage, not simply the views of those who are against it.
An issue that has, in recent years, begun to increase in arguments, is the acceptability of homosexuality in society. Until recently, homosexuality was considered strictly taboo. If an individual was homosexual, it was considered a secret to be kept from all family, friends, and society. However, it seems that society has begun to accept this lifestyle by allowing same sex couples. The idea of coming out of the closet has moved to the head of homosexual individuals when it used to be the exception.
Although non-supporters are doing everything in their power to make homosexuality cease, the homosexual population of the world is constantly on the rise. Homosexuals are constantly fighting for and receiving rights. Acceptance of homosexuality is becoming more and more abundant. Homosexuals are striving to be accepted by society every day. With gay victimhood ending, gay marriage becoming legal, and options for raising children in a gay household becoming available, they are surely achieving this goal. Therefore, homosexuals are quickly conforming to the norm.
America is the odd one out when one looks at its political activity. An article ...