Politicians and their speech-writers have an ability to take everyday events and represent them from whichever perspective suits the party vision, or the need of the hour as the politicians see them.

In a polarized democracy, as in the United States at the end of the 1970s, it was relatively straightforward for either party to present its views as representative of the general view of the people. It is not necessarily the case that either view was the right one, but what mattered was, which view had the greater relevance for the listeners and people.

Jimmy Carter made his case as the President that he had done as much as he could to fix the problems which beset American economy. He acknowledged that he had not been entirely successful, but put the onus on the American people's lack of confidence and the rising demand for energy. He promised to implement a model of shared sacrifice to combat the challenges of inflation and energy insecurity. He also offered to provide aid to the poorest Americans and cover increasing energy costs by a windfall tax on profits of energy companies. He asked Americans through their communities and cities to focus on energy conservation by leveraging public transportation and minimizing the unnecessary usage of cars.

The proposals fitted together well, but the general tenor of his framework was an appeal to everyone to pull together and tighten their belts, to give up frivolous expenditure of energy, and to share the burden of the government. These proposals made the American populace even more uncertain and nervous than they were - austerity measures are never popular, even if they appear to be the right thing to do.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, appealed to the strength of the American character and to the numerous times in the past that the American people had formed a strong alliance against internal and external