As always, America is concerned with money-with the economy and with the budget. Now that concern has taken Americans to a new debate over raising the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount that our nation is allowed to borrow. It is no news that our nation is in debt and that our economy is sunk in the economic sea, one way to help raise the sunken ship is to raise the debt ceiling; according to Obama and some other politicians. The final decision about the debt limit will be up to Congress, until they vote on this many Americans will be debating from different points of views whether this will have a positive or negative impact on our economy.
Like many political issues or any debate for that matter, there are two main positions on the debt ceiling: 1) Raise the debt ceiling 2) Do not raise the debt ceiling. Of course there are many different angles and sub topics to this issue, but these are the two main stances. On both sides of the issue, politicians and supporters argue with logical reasoning and with propaganda. In the essay entitled “How to Detect Propaganda”, propaganda is defined as “expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends” (496).
I found a video clip of Sarah Palin talking about the debt ceiling in an interview with FOX news. In this video Palin clearly says that she does not support raising the debt ceiling. Palin’s position is why increase our debt when we already have so much debt? Instead of digging ourselves in deeper, we should work on paying off the debt that we already have. This makes sense, if a person has reached their debt limit on one credit card why would they get another credit card to put more debt on? Borrowing more money will only increase our debt: ok, this is an easy idea to grasp. In this video interview Palin says, “I would say before you think about seriously voting to increase the debt limit and incur more unsustainable, immoral, unethical debt that is really going to ruin our country to continue down this path”. Do I detect a bit of name calling here? According to the Institute for propaganda Analysis name calling plays on people’s fears and uses bad names to encourage the listener to form judgment without looking at the facts (497). Palin calls this debt by the names of “immoral” and “unethical”. Palin does not go on to explain how the debt is immoral or unethical, these words allow the listener to assume the worst about the debt and she goes on to play on every American’s fear that our economy is “going to ruin” and this will surely happen if the debt ceiling is raised.
Like many political issues or any debate for that matter, there are two main positions on the debt ceiling: 1) Raise the debt ceiling 2) Do not raise the debt ceiling. Of course there are many different angles and sub topics to this issue, but these are the two main stances. On both sides of the issue, politicians and supporters argue with logical reasoning and with propaganda. In the essay entitled “How to Detect Propaganda”, propaganda is defined as “expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends” (496).
I found a video clip of Sarah Palin talking about the debt ceiling in an interview with FOX news. In this video Palin clearly says that she does not support raising the debt ceiling. Palin’s position is why increase our debt when we already have so much debt? Instead of digging ourselves in deeper, we should work on paying off the debt that we already have. This makes sense, if a person has reached their debt limit on one credit card why would they get another credit card to put more debt on? Borrowing more money will only increase our debt: ok, this is an easy idea to grasp. In this video interview Palin says, “I would say before you think about seriously voting to increase the debt limit and incur more unsustainable, immoral, unethical debt that is really going to ruin our country to continue down this path”. Do I detect a bit of name calling here? According to the Institute for propaganda Analysis name calling plays on people’s fears and uses bad names to encourage the listener to form judgment without looking at the facts (497). Palin calls this debt by the names of “immoral” and “unethical”. Palin does not go on to explain how the debt is immoral or unethical, these words allow the listener to assume the worst about the debt and she goes on to play on every American’s fear that our economy is “going to ruin” and this will surely happen if the debt ceiling is raised.
Now for the other side. Their main argument is that we are on the verge of a financial crisis (haven’t we already reached that point?) and that raising the debt ceiling will prevent this and help our economy get out of this recession. In an article in The Atlantic entitled “Why Are Democrats Playing the GOP’s Game With Debt Ceiling?” the author Derek Thompson states, “There is a consensus on the debt limit among the most important people in Washington.” In making this statement, Thompson is using the propaganda device called transfer. Transfer carries over the authority of some esteemed person or group according to The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. In saying that the most important people in Washington agree that the debt ceiling must be raised, the author is implying that we should take their side, after all, they are the most important people in Washington and they know what their talking about, right? Thompson also uses the name calling devise in calling the people who oppose this “wacky”….really? Isn’t that a bit childish?
We need to remain aware of the different propaganda devices and hear both sides of an argument before we form judgment, otherwise we may fail to think for ourselves and blindly believe one side based on their deceptive devices.
-E
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/democrats-catch-debt-ceiling-fever/238077/
To E:
ReplyDeleteYour title really caught my attention. I was actually confused for a bit about what you actually meant. I thought it meant something in the sense of how far is too far or there is no limit to life. Your first line also intrigued me because it’s the truth, “As always, America is concerned with the money-with the economy and with the budget.” I never knew about this “debt ceiling” and how there is a maximum to it, but some are trying to rain it higher. In politics here is always name calling and doublespeak and this wasn’t an exception. Palin clearly shows her side that she is defending and she uses this so can people can look at facts and not really pay attention to who she is and what validity she has on the subject.
You used a great example when mentioning that Thompson used the word “whacky” in his article an I agree with your message of looking at both sides before judging because if we let things influence, such as most of the devices in chapter seven and nine then we will sure become victims of going along with the everyone else and never have a unique perspective on what we believe is true and false.
I completely agree with you. We need to watch out for propaganda because this might get in our head some way or another. I believe we should do extra research on the topics that interest us, and not just get it from one source. There should always be at least two sources that explain thoroughly what is being argued. Two different points of is good enough to make an educated opinion on an issue. Of course, the more the better, but as long as you have two completely different points of views to look at and differ, you can make an assumption of which one you think is logically more in order to you. Politicians make these propagandas in order to lure us in with their points of views and “name calling,” as you said. They wish for us to make a decision just by listening to their point of views. A good politician will not just give these propagandas, a good politician will explain these and his or her opinion for it completely. I think that when a politician is willing to direct their word to the people, they should have an idea as well as explanation for everything they say also, or else just about anyone who can talk should be on television to put out one sentence of what they think.
ReplyDelete