The definition of a presidential spectacle, in context to Mirroff's essay, is an public event set up by the president of the United State that changes their image, attempts to change the standing point on a topic, or situation. An example in recent history that supports Miroff’s stance that the presidency is a spectacle that as Miroff has stated “obfuscates presidential activity, undermines executive accountability” is the George W. Bush’s speech after 9/11. After a few weeks of the tragedy of 9/11, Bush made a speech at congress that would forever change how the media and in a sense, the people would see George W. Bush. His speech struck a powerful balance between responding to the acts of terrorism, displaying tolerance towards those that …show more content…
An example of a Trump spectacle was with Trumps statements about adding a wall on the southern border of the U.S and making Mexico pay for it. Trumps rather xenophobic statement blindsided multiple news networks. All of the news networks that have left ideologies are even anti-trump ideologies spent a large quantity of time displaying how terrible building a wall that meets Trump’s demands would be for the economy and relations with Mexico. The spectacle reach a whole new level when Trump contradicted himself and stated that he never wanted to build a wall in the first place. An even more spectacular spectacle was when Trump stated that some news sites are displaying fake news. In fact, most times when Trump does anything public, online or in real life, those public interactions can be considered a spectacle on it’s own. These constant spectacles has led to a more divided political system than ever before. Causing multiple parties like , alt-right, antifa, neoliberal, to emerge due to the dislike and disagreements of mainstream political groups. As previously stated with Trump’s spectacle on fake news, it can lead to effect where all news articles and sites are on the same level of merit, which is absolutely terrible. This means that news sites that have irrefutable sources and sites that are clearly created for the sake of clicks may be on the same playfield. These will definitely have a rather negative effect on the U.S. political
Skowornek writes, “these presidents each set out to retrieve from a far distant, even mythic, past fundamental values that they claim had been lost in the indulgences of the received order, In this way, the order-shattering and order-affirming impulses of the presidency in politics became mutually reinforcing.” (Skowornek, 37, book). These presidents are in the best position not because they are exceptional at their job but because the time they came into office offered them the elasticity and authority to make new orders and be welcomed by the public because he is taking the country out of its troubles and challenges.
In the “George Bush’ Columbia” speech, George W. Bush used a variety of ways in order to make his mark and effectively assemble his dialog. One of the most prominent strategies Mr. Bush used was his sentence structure. He did a great job shaping his speech by initially addressing the problem at hand. He first stated what happened, who it happened to, and gave his condolences to the ones who didn’t make it, along with their families. Mr. Bush also seemed sincere throughout his speech as he made sure to mention each hero apart of the crew. Another technique George W. Bush displayed was the diction and tone he used while delivering the speech. From listening to the audio last week, I remember the passion behind Bush’s words and the sincerity
In response to his alleged affair with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, who at the time was an intern at the White House, President Clinton took to a national broadcast to clear his name. In his testimony, Clinton begins with a formal and slightly apologetic tone, and then subtly shifts the blame from his actions to the nosiness of the American public, victimizing himself. There were four different tone shifts in this particular speech, and he uses this to his advantage in turning the spotlight away from his private life, and to national issues. In his address, President Clinton uses a wide variety of rhetorical devices to convince his audience, the American people, that his stance on the matter is the most valid, and to reestablish his credibility,
Bush opens his speech by acknowledging the events of September 11, and those that lost the lives of loved ones and to those that gave their life trying to save others in the buildings. He appeals to those that remain strong by saying that, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.” His use of pathos helps Bush to calm and control the public in order to keep the country together. This
It all happened in an instant. One minute thousands of civilians were on their way to work when everything changed. President George Bush gave an iconic speech that was not only memorable but gave hope to the Americans that justice would be served to those associated with the terrorist group al-Qaida. George Bush’s speech rallied the Americans to fight back against the terrorists because he used rhetorical devices such as parallelism, analogies, and repetition.
On August 17, 1998, exactly one year after making the statement above, President Bill Clinton prepared to deliver a speech concerning a scandal that had gripped the nation for months. It is needless to say that this was an important moment during the Clinton administration. After accusations of sexual harassment, Clinton addressed the nation and admitted to having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In this critical speech Clinton set out to admit to wrong-doings, provide a few reasons for his action, and ultimately persuade the audience into moving on and forgetting the scandal. This essay will break down his speech into sections and examine the most and least effective strategies that Clinton employed and how well he executed those strategies. This is an interesting speech given under rare circumstances. Not since Watergate had an American president been under such harsh moral criticism from the public. By looking critically at this speech we are able to gain valuable insight into Clinton's motives.
Imagine your son or daughter holding a gun, and accidently shoot his family member. Person shows up to a school building armed and shot 20 innocent children who would’ve had bright future ahead of them. This situation happened multiple times in the past. It is an alarm, sounding for us to create better gun control. America is a huge nations and gun control became a major problem as mentioned in the speech, fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun monthly. Everyone can deliver a speech, yet not everyone can draw the reader’s attention, sell their words, and gain attractions from the audience. A great speaker is known for his usage of appeals. LaPierre called
The speech given by Mr. President Deals with the consequences of violent actions and it raises questions of morality. It is an attempt to guide the American people through their hard times and motivating them.
This discourse analysis attempts to answer several questions regarding Chairman Hyde's speech against the president. Firstly an attempt has been made to uncover some of the more prevalent themes and discourses in the hope that they will give some kind of enlightenment of American society and culture. Secondly, this analysis describes the many ways in which Chairman Hyde attempts to persuade his audience of his cause. The portrayed image of President Clinton is then focused on, and finally there is a discussion relating to the various social codes implied within Hyde's speech. It has been found that many of these areas overlap to a greater or lesser degree. However it is believed that the four questions should be answered separately at the risk of sounding repetitive, as this gives the reader a chance to identify and understand how ideas and themes can serve quite different purposes when expressed in different contexts and discourses, and with particular motivations.
In 1987, the President of the United States at the time was Ronald Reagan. Everyone has their differing opinions when it comes to judging the quality of the job a President has done. There are many factors that cause biased opinions. Some of these include your political party affiliation, your viewpoint on the social matters that were going on at the time, and your economic standing. Despite all these varying viewpoints, people can agree upon one thing when it comes to Ronald Reagan. That one thing is that in 1987, when turmoil due to post-war political issues split Germany into two sides, Reagan made a speech that is known as “The Speech at Brandenburg Gate” that altered the course of history. His exalted rhetoric was highly touted at the
Of all the ways a president can be remembered as a failure, however, one of the most common is to have a scandal. While a single scandal may not ruin a president, if the US public reacts in a negative way, regardless of the accomplishments of the president,
He thinks that regardless of the existence of other influential performers from other branches of the government, the president can act based on many other rights he possesses, such as executive orders and national security directives. These tools will allow him to bypass the traditional legislative process. Despite that both authors define power as president’s prime influence, Howell however argues that president has more capacity in which he can partially decide the outcome of a given situation if not whole. Howell steps further and insists more on the president’s capability despite the fact that Neustadt defines power as individual power. Howell envisions that the President must influence the “content of public policy”, in contrast, Neustadt’s argument is based on the exercise of the “Effective” impact by President. Howell, on the other hand, considers that the President is way more powerful on his own than Neustadt thinks. Howell thinks that executive orders, for example, open the path to the President to make important decisions without trying to persuade Congress or the other branches of the government to gain their support. Howell uses President Truman’s decision about federal employees. Howell’s view of unilateral presidential action perfectly fits moments when of crisis when the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot afford the long process of the congressional decision making. As he writes “a propensity of presidents, especially during times of crisis, to unilaterally impose their will on the American public.”
Genovese A., Michael. "'What Have You Done For Me Lately?: The Demands Placed On The American Presidency.' National Forum 80 (2000): 30-40.
President George W. Bush is notorious for horrible public speaking, tripping over his words and making silly mistakes are not uncommon in President Bush’s speeches. When 9/11 struck the heart of America we turned to President Bush to guide us back to the path of calm and reason. The American population tends to lean on our President in time of tragedy to serve as a system of support. Instantly after the World Trade Center buildings were attacked President Bush addressed the nation on live television. Bush used neo-Aristotelian tactics: ethos, pathos, and logos to instate a sense of patriotism, argue that America will recover from this tragedy and bring justice to our nation.
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).