Living in a post-9/11 world we are constantly seeing the world through "terrorism colored glasses." What is wrong and right, as Cicero states is being taught through this constant fear of terrorism. It has leaked into all aspects of life, but especially those dictated by social institutions such as the government. In the 2008 campaign Sarah Palin defied most of Cicero's rules on how to be a good rhetor, which created a mockery of herself but also revealed the importance of rhetoric in leadership at such a hot-button time.
During her interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin made many mistakes a vital error according to Cicero who states, "For nothing stands out so conspicuously, or remains so firmly fixed in the memory, as something in which you have blundered" (307). In her defense Sarah Palin was brought onto the presidential campaign rather hastily, giving her a lack of time to overview issues/history/laws that might have been brought up. Cicero declares, "For excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about" (296).
The root of grand speaking, or rhetoric, in Cicero's texts links back to having knowledge of both laws, and a multitude of subject matters. His rules of rhetoric rely on three main principles, "Thus for purposes of persuasion the art of speaking relies wholly on three things: the proof of our allegations, the winning of our hearers' favor, and the rousing of their feelings to whatever impulse our case may require" (324). Sarah Palin often lacked proof of allegations, not because she did not have evidentiary support but her claims were often muddled and confusing leading her to a lack of saying anything directly. According to the Toulmin model she might have data but she lacks a warrant or a claim. In terms of winning the hearer's favor she was often mocked and ridiculed throughout the press and throughout different political parties. By becoming a laughing joke she destroyed her ethos, which was lacking in the first place given her position in comparison to most of Washington D.C. And finally she roused feelings within the audience but not the ones she intended to, rather than inspiring a nation she caused fear, terror, and sympathy. Living in a world driven by fear of terrorism and international policy, our ethics are shaped around these notions, and by mimicking that sense of fear within our own leaders, Sarah Palin failed at performing Cicero's ways of speaking or performing rhetoric well.
As Cicero points out, "Stupidity finds no apology" (306).
I'm glad you decided to tackle such a specific political figure in your blog post as I'm sure others (including myself) were hesitant to stir the pot. I remember this time well because it was the first time I was able to vote in a presidential election. My family lives in rural Montana and I distinctly remember seeing a number of bumper stickers in support of Palin, paired with slogans reminiscent of the feminist movement. This was shocking to me. I couldn't understand how women could support a candidate so blatantly uniformed about the world she lived in. Sure she was a supporter of women's rights, but who isn't really? Instead of delving into a long rant in your comments, I guess I'll bring myself to a point. I feel like the rhetorical community in this instance was ever so flawed. The speaker and audience were ignorant of the topics they were discussing, so I guess there is a reason Palin attracted so many voters. Outside of politics and in general conversations, I have noticed people tend to agree with what others are saying about subjects they themselves don't have knowledge of. I've been one of these people in the past and I can't say it won't happen again. Sadly, sometimes it's just easier to conform. If someone starts talking to me about crop rotation, naturally I'm going to believe everything they say. It is the responsibility of the orator in that instance to not spew false information. To those who don't know what they are talking about, please shut up.
ReplyDelete