Taking Political Power Back For the People of America

Context Described

In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. It was a split decision (five to four). The argument in favor of the decision is that the government has no right regulating political speech. Those who oppose the decision believe that allowing corporations to endorse candidate elections would degrade democracy. Traditionally, we have been a nation based on a democracy of individual voices however; this ruling may change that creating a nation influenced by corporate spending. Some members of the nation support this change but others are fearful of it (New York Times, 2010).

Message Described

Whether in support of this change or fearful of it, the decision affects everyone. The video is from the website FreeSpeechForPeople.org. It is entitled “What Did the $upreme Court Do to Our Democracy?” It is in response to the Supreme Court ruling that private for profit corporations are citizens with political rights and takes a position that opposes the ruling. The audience of the message is the people of America who are competent in political issues. The video is composed of interviews of common people on Capital Mall, clips of Senators who oppose the decision, a comedian using sarcastic satire making fun of the decision, and a narrator with an informative style combining these elements. The main argument of this video is that corporations are not people therefore should not have influential power over our nation. The video views corporations as sinister entities taking away power from the people and diminishing our democracy. The message defends the first amendment and wants to reclaim it for US citizens (What did the Supreme Court do to our Democracy?, 2010).

Analysis

The above description revealed the purpose of the message and whom the message is intended for. Taking a “New Rhetoric” point of view, particularly the work of Chaim Perelman, will lead to the discovery of how the components of the message relate to one another. Perelman’s work consists mainly on the process of argumentation, reasoning process, and audiences. Even though Perelman named his model of rhetoric the New Rhetoric, it is based primarily on the works of Aristotle and Cicero (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.171). One of Perelman’s ideas that will be focused on is creating presence which is the process of bringing something to the audience’s mind (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.174). Another one of Perelman’s ideas that will be focused on is universal audience which is thought of as including all people who are rational and competent with respect to the issues being debated (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.172). Consequently, I intend to show that by creating presence and using the universal audience the message attempts to argue that free speech is a right for the people of a democracy and that corporations are taking that power away from the people. Chaim Perelman states that “what an audience accepts forms a body of opinion, convictions, and commitments that is both vast and indeterminate. From this body the orator must select certain elements on which he focuses attention by endowing them, as it were, with a ‘presence’ (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.174).” In other words, if the rhetor wanted to form a specific opinion in you they would choose to show you only the facts and opinions relevant to that opinion. The rhetor would want to keep your attention on only those ideas and their way of viewing them (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P. 174). That is the basis of creating presence. It is the process of bringing something to the audience’s mind and presenting it in a way that adheres to the rhetor’s perspective (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.174). The way in which the message contains elements of creating presence is by bringing to the audience’s mind that corporations are evil. It uses a metaphor illustrating corporations as a Frankenstein monster. Jamie Raskin, Maryland State Senator, brings this illustration to the audience’s mind by saying;
Up until the Robert’s Court we have an unbroken line of precedent going back to the beginning saying that a corporation is something that has been created by the people, by the states, for the purposes of achieving our objectives as people and now suddenly the Supreme Court has turned it into a Frankenstein monster and said this creature of the people, creature of the state can intervene in our politics and spend its money as it pleases. That is an extraordinary dangerous thing (What did the Supreme Court do to our Democracy?, 2010).
The frankenstein metaphor is important because it brings to the audience’s mind that corporations are not compassionate. They are sinister entities. Therefore, allowing this evil beast to spend its money to influence political decisions their way should be perceived by people as frightening. Raskin’s quote has elements of creating presence because when considering how presence is working as a rhetorical tool you may ask such questions as: “What exactly is the rhetor asking me to pay attention to? (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.174).” Raskin’s quote does that and brings his perspective to the audience’s mind. The kind of presence the video creates is a frightening reality where the wishes of corporations supersede the wishes of the American people. Perelman’s ideas help us to see better that rhetoric is focused on audiences - the judges or decision makers to whom arguments are addressed (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.178) He reintroduces the roles of audience and rhetorical context into the reasoning process (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.171). Perelman judges an argument on the quality of the audience it persuades, stating that an argument that persuades the best audience is the best argument (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.172). Therefore, the universal audience is thought of as including all people who are rational and competent with respect to the issues being debated. In other words, universal audience is synonymous with qualified audience or expert audience (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.172). This concept causes the critic to factor in the nature of the audiences addressed by a rhetor when evaluating the quality of the message (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.173). All of this applies to the video text because the video’s message was not intended for everybody. The message was intended for all people who are rational and competent in political issues. Therefore, the universal audience would be any united states citizen of legal voting age (18 years old and older) who actively keep up with politics. This universal audience was targeted by placing the video on a political website entitled FreeSpeechForPeople.org. No one would stumble upon the video unless purposely looking for information on politics. This message contains elements of universal audience by presenting arguments that appeal to people who are competent in political issues and understand the impact that corporate spending will have on the political system. The following quote by Senator Russ Feingold illustrates the universal audience; “this is about the people they represent, who live in a democracy and who deserve a political system where their views and interests are not completely drown out by corporate spending (What did the Supreme Court do to our Democracy?, 2010).” Would people who do not care about politics have views and interests in the political system? Would those people even care that their political voice is being lost to corporate spending? Most likely not. Only those who actively take part in political issues would feel that they deserve a political system where their views and interests are not completely drown out by corporate spending. Therefore, Feingold’s quote has elements of universal audience because it is meant for a qualified audience with knowledge in the political system and the impact of corporate spending. It persuades the audience to take a side, the side being opposed to a political system influenced by corporate spending. This argument is judged in the exact way a universal audience argument is judged, that being the best argument is an argument that persuades the best audience. For this argument to be truly convincing it must persuade an audience of politicians.

Interpretation

The process of interpretation is the step in which “the critic interprets what it means that the rhetor made particular choices (Stoner & Perkins, 2008, P.91).” The video entitled “What did the $upreme Court do to our Democracy?” demonstrates the uses of Chaim Perelman’s creating presence and universal audience. But why did the rhetor choose to uses these specific rhetorical devices when others were available? The purpose of the video was to encourage the people of America to reclaim the first amendment for the people and defend our democracy. In order to successfully do that, the rhetor had to bring to the audience’s mind the dangers of what corporate spending would have on our political system when used to influence their political views. This is the process of creating presence which can be found throughout the message. Also, in order to successfully persuade the people of America to defend our democracy, the rhetor had to present arguments that would appeal to people who are competent in the political system and the ways of corporate spending. That is the idea of the universal audience and elements of it can be found within the message.

Works Cited
Liptak, A. (2010, January 21). Justices, 5-4, reject corporate spending limit. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?_r=1
Stoner, M., & Perkins, S. (2008). Making sense of messages: A critical apprenticeship in rhetorical criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
What did the $upreme court do to our democracy?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/