|Simian Pride |
In case embedding fails:
I like this, however, I think it's worth saying that from a rhetorical standpoint that the act of identifying/exposing hypocrisy doesn't have an effect on those who hold the beliefs being exposed. The exposure of hypocrisy here is only serving to reinforce the views of the audience in which Stewart is a member. Or more simply, calling the conservatives hypocrites, showing how their position is hypocritical, does not induce change in the conservatives and only serves as self justifying propaganda for Stewart and his audience.
To persuade the conservatives to both consider and implement the values that Stewart and his audience advocate, Stewart needs to show how neglecting position actually weakens the conservative argument. For example, for Stewart's position to have efficacy, he would need to show that a weak teachers union (which means lower pay and benefits) harms the economy, harms the concept of individual liberty, is bad for business, etc..
"Stewart needs to show how neglecting *HIS* position actually..."
Phasebob, you're confusing the issue with presumptions about the role of satirists, or "comedians" as you call them, and the point of a rhetorical analysis.
Rhetorical analyses (of this type) aim to examine the means of persuasion and identify which means are successful and which are not.
The analysis is not about Stewart, it's about what are the effective ways one can persuade a group of people toward a particular situation. The petite analysis I provided uses Stewart's monologue as the framework for bringing out this tension between conservative and union values.
Whether Stewart as a satirist (or comedian as you called him) should do something or not is another question entirely. The issue is if one wishes to be successful in persuading the conservatives of the value of unions, then one would more effective rhetorically addressing the conservatives by values (ideological framework) that I suggested.
... and I suppose, in cases like this, the most likely strategy is to remind the other guy that he is a sucker. If the wealthiest Americans are getting richer and richer even during a crappy economy, and you're mad at teachers of all people for having a living wage*, you're a sucker.
The other guy might get mad at you for telling him he's a sucker, but it plants the seed.
*: I know, that's a debate for another time.
I just don't understand the plan, here. Do they really think that by getting rid of unions they'll be making all those nasty ol' Democrats disappear?
If anything, the networks that used to be unions would then become social granges, which they destroyed a century ago, and if the grange movement started up again, capitalism is doomed.
I love Stewart,
But he is muddling a few distinct issues here in the clip mashup, and I don't think I've ever seen him work into the issues a bit to show that things aren't obviously that simple.
1)Wall St. Blew Up Teh American Economy!
This is a bit of a funny statement. It's obviously true from one perspective, yes Wall St. blew up teh American economy. But if an economy was going to blow up (what does that mean anyway?) it would probably happen in the industrial sector where a lot of these things like trading exchanges, lending, economic policy etc. meet. Hard to imagine it happening in, say, the entertainment sector.
And haven't every single one of our reoccurring blowups in history always been Wall St. related? Wouldn't we still have blowups without Wall St.? Would they be worse without "Wall St." ?
Still it is unfair to blame the Wall St. bogeyman here, there have been structural regulation changes that certainly had a lot to do with enabling (heck, controlling) consumer and broker/dealer behavior (low interest rates, chief among them).
Wall St. workers are painted with a wide brush (by Stewart and the pro-Wall St. news reports), compared to school teachers, whom all perform very similar functions to eachother. You can find managers, traders, bankers, lawyers, lowly computer programmers....there is an *extremely* big spread in income between them. They probably do ok, but I can tell you on the "middle-class" end (200k-ish) some people are beginning to think that taking a lower salary for a more enjoyable job might be worth it.
The funny thing is that I bet any school teacher would take pride in a former student having risen to, say, a mid senior level at Goldman Sachs.
The clips were specifically referring to the AIG bonus contracts, these types of compensation contracts do exist (not just in Wall St., but in sports and entertainment, for much bigger numbers). They are contracts, and rational workers will pursue every means available to them to make sure they are honored. There is really nothing unfair about this. As a side note you may want to read this:
I'm just surprised he didn't throw in the evils of "high frequency trading" for good measure.
There is a lot wrong (not just with Wall St., the school system is doing terrible things to kids all the time, think about your own schoolhood), and a lot to fix. Stewart is almost always hilarious, just wish he wasn't trying to hard favor (what is, at the end of the day) a particular economic policy decision.
I'm not sure if you know how to use either of those words correctly...
5 completely biased stars because one of my jobs consist of being a teacher's aid in a SPED class.
My boss (the teacher) is a Fillipino scab that my district hired because no Americans want to work with low-incident children at the salary they pay. Yet, me and my fellow Para's call her "Money Bags" because she still makes a shit ton more than we could ever hope to see.
So you're one of the fat cats. Thank God the Republicans have the courage to take you bastards down.
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
I saw this already and thought of submitting it.
God, it just makes me so angry.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|