P2 - Second essay, the interpretive problem in a fallacy PDF

Preview

Summary

Second essay, the interpretive problem in a fallacy...

Description

Madduri 1

Lalitha Madduri  Jack Lowery  University Writing  30 October 2017 Basket of   Reproachables:   On Hillary Clinton’s   “Basket of Deplorables” Speech  As the 2016 election started reaching its close, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary  Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, said half of Donald Trump's supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" characterized by   "racist, sexist, homophobic,   xenophobic, Islamaphobic" views (Reilly). In   election politics, it is well-known custom to attack the opponent, not the electorate. In fact, around the same time during the 2012 election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney   censured   the voter base by   suggesting that forty-seven percent of  Americans “believe that government has a responsibility to care for them… [and] that they are entitled to health   care,   to   food, to   housing,   to   you-name-it"   (Cillizza).   As   a  result,   his polling numbers plummeted as voters and critics buried him with backlash. Clinton’s speech therefore  begs the question: Why would   she purposefully insult such   a large portion of the voter base that  she is trying to win   over?  At the   beginning of this section of her speech, Clinton throws around buzzwords for the sake of   tacking them onto   Trump’s voter   base, dubbing them, “racist, sexist, homophobic,  xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you   name it” (Reilly). She continues to attack her target in sustained  manner. The negative connotation underlying these words is intentional and unforgiving as Clinton caps off   her   judgment by   rendering these individuals “irredeemable,” but not before adding, “thankfully they are not America.” (Reilly).  In Hillary’s terms,   and   for   the   purposes   of 

Madduri 2

this exhibit,   then,   American   values   consist   of   progress,   tolerance,   and   unity   while   anti-american  values encompass bigotry and divisiveness.  In journalist and critic Maria Bustillos’ essay,   “When Truth Falls Apart,” she highlights the idea   that   politics   has   created   a  “post-truth   society”   in   which   “emotional   or   political   appeal” takes the   place   of   “empirical   truth”   (Bustillos   2).   Bustillos’   post-truth   society   is   built   upon   the  use of   three   tactics:   misinformation   that   strips   the   public   of   an   accurate   recount   of   an   event,  disinformation, false information planted by   others, and dismediation, a form of propaganda that “seeks to undermine the medium by which it travels,” leaving citizens skeptical of all   fact (Bustillos 3).    Through   these   processes,   Bustillos   argues   that   politicians   have   created   a  “state   of  uncertainty” in which “what   we   can   be   persuaded   to   wish   to   believe…   is   as   good   as   the   truth”  (Bustillos 2).  Clinton employs Bustillos’ tactics in order to create a post-truth society of her own to  combat the   one   Trump   has   created   with   his   campaign.   When   Clinton   states   that   “half”   of Trump’s supporters can be placed in the basket of deplorables, which, in Bustillos’ words, is a “biased impression”   of   the   true   population   clearly   placing   her   statements in   the   containers   of  “misinformation” and “disinformation” that Bustillos emphasizes (Reilly, Bustillos 3). These statements thrive in the post-truth society: “dismediating” her own argument by   stating it is “grossly generalistic” allows Clinton to make overarching statements as long as they align with consistent ideals   in   her   speech   (Bustillos   4,   Reilly).   And   after   outlining   the   nature   and   existence  of these   deplorables,   Clinton   emphasizes   that   Trump   “has   lifted   them   up, given   voice   to their  websites that   used   to   only   have   11,000 people   -  now   with 11   million.   He tweets   and   retweets…  their hateful rhetoric” (Reilly). By   pointing out Trump’s effect, Hillary breaks citizens out of the

Madduri 3

post-truth society   Trump   has   created   on   social   media,   one   in   which   these   bigoted   views   are acceptable and garner solidarity that otherwise does not exist in the “real world.” In   doing   so,  Clinton associates   Trump’s   voters   directly   to   Trump’s   campaign   and   actions:   these entities are  not separate as Trump lifts up bigoted voices, while Hillary states that bigoted voices belong in  Trump’s “basket of deplorables.” At   this   point,   Clinton not only portrays a picture of Trump’s voter base that Bustillos would say is “  divorced   from   fact,”   but   also   directly   relats   Trump’s voter base to Trump   himself   for   the   purposes   of message (Bustillos).  Within his memoir,   “Contest   of   Words,”   poet   and   author   Ben   Lerner   laments   the   decline of sincere public speech due to the lionization of shallowness.   Lerner comments on the public’s shift of   attraction   to   the   “quality   of   delivery”   of   speech   rather   than   the   substance,   resulting   in   a “national separation of value and policy” (Lerner 63). Additionally, the phenomenon of “spread” that Lerner defines in his essay as “information disclosed at a speed designed to make it difficult to comprehend,”   overwhelms   Americans   to   the   point   that   arguments   are   conceded   no matter their quality, known as “dropped arguments” (Lerner 64).   Given Bustillos’ analysis of political speech, we may   safely   label   Lerner’s   spread   as   a  mechanism   that   fuels   the   “post-truth” society as it is   “designed   to conceal”   the   speaker’s   true   intent (Bustillos 1, Lerner 64). Clinton employs this tactic of “spread” to double down on the post-truth society she has  created through   the tactics Bustillos   illustrated   by forcing   Trump   supporters   into two   baskets  through association. By   hurling the seemingly endless epithets, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic,” coupled with the “you name it” to allow leeway for additional displays of bigotry, Clinton “spreads” the listener and thus immerses them in her post-truth  society before they can respond (Lerner   64).   Of   course,   just   because   someone   holds   one   example 

Madduri 4

of these bigoted   views does not mean they hold every single one-- one can be “racist” without  being “sexist, homophobic, xenophobic,” etc. But as per Lerner, the “last thing” you   should   do  with this   laundry   list   is   to   comprehend   it,   and   should   you   challenge   Clinton’s   attacks,   it   will   be  too late as   you   have   already   “conceded   the   validity of the point by failing to address it when it was presented” (Lerner 64).   Through the lens of Lerner’s and Bustillos’ essays, Clinton labels and shuts   down conversation about half of Trump’s voters, and in doing so, groups  self-identifying Trump   supporters   with   these   “deplorables,”   forcing   them   to   accept   that   they   are  in a  cohort   with extreme bigots. At this   point,   however, some may posit that Clinton attacks Trump’s voter base rather  than the candidate himself in order to rally her existing supporters and unite them against the other party. However,   this assertion does not explain why Clinton employs the idea of Bustillos’  “post-truth society” to combat the one Trump created-- after all, Clinton’s supporters are   not   the  ones falling into the hive-mind environment of bigotry Trump fosters through social media (Bustillos 1).   Additionally,   were   Clinton   to   simply   utilize   this   speech   to   rally   her   own   supporters  against the opposition, she would   not have employed the “spread,” which is intended to  overwhelm individuals who attempt to “challenge” the misinformation present in spread (Lerner 64). Clinton’s supporters,   on the other hand, have little reason to challenge the candidate they support, leaving us with the question still of why Clinton chose to attack the voter base rather than the   opponent (Lerner 64).  Meanwhile, American author and political commentator George Orwell criticizes the  manner in which   authors   blur their own meaning in his essay,   “Politics and the English  Language.” He   states   that   authors   increasingly   employ   meaningless   words and   cliche phrases 

Madduri 5

that “[lose]   all   evocative   power   and   are   merely   used   because   they   save   [people]   the   effort   of thinking on their own,” resulting   in   politicians   using   words   in   a  “consciously   dishonest   way”  (Orwell 132, 133). These   authors   also   twist   words   such   that   they   have   “several   different  meanings which   cannot   be   reconciled   with   one   another”   according   to   Orwell,   permitting   the them to use a word to convey a generally positive connotation while allowing the reader to think  something different from his or her “private definition” (132). While Orwell   argues   that   blurring   one’s own message “paves the path to easy speech,” Lerner comes   to   a  similar   conclusion   about   the lionization of “slowness” and “halting speech”  (Orwell 133, Lerner   65). For   the   modern-day   “spread   American,”   for   whom   “everything   seems  to be   happening   too rapidly,” the “valorized slowness” and substitution of “meaningless words” for substance   within political speech is thus seductive within this environment of “toxic  skepticism” (Lerner 66,   Orwell   133,   Bustillos   2). Through   this   discourse   between   Lerner,  Bustillos, and   Orwell,   it   becomes   evident   how Clinton exploits these “gross generalizations.”  Clinton creates an   oversimplification   of   the complex reasons behind the reasons  Americans vote   for   Trump   in   order   to   align   these   individuals   to   behave   within her “post-truth” narrative. As she   shifts her focus to the other basket of Trump supporters,   Americans disillusioned by the   system,   who   must   be   “under[stood]   and empathize[d] with as well,”   her  language grows   obscure   (Reilly).   She   states   that   they   believe   “the   economy   has   let   them   down,  nobody cares about them, nobody   worries about what happens to their lives and their futures.” After being   spread,   the   audience   now   experiences   “stubborn   slowness”   as   Clinton   fills   her speech with the abstract problems that these disillusioned individuals face: for example worries  about their “lives,” their “futures,” belief that “the economy” has let them down (Lerner 66).

Madduri 6

These “ready-made”   abstractions   “fall   upon facts   like   snow”-  the   facts   being   the   complex reasons behind   the creation of a Trump supporter (Orwell 134, 136). This tactic   forces   the   reader into a  “post-truth   society”   in   which   the   Trump   supporter   is   boiled   down   to   a  figure   who   is   either  pitiful or deplorable, not both or neither. Clinton thus twists the idea of the two opposing illustrations of the Trump supporter that “cannot be reconciled,” while holding her own “private definition” of who a Trump supporter truly is (Orwell 133).   Doing so, in Orwell’s words,   “saves  [Hillary] the mental effort” of analyzing the complex, intersectional motivations of Trump  voters. (Orwell 132). Through the lens of these three essays, Clinton’s intentions grow clear. The calculated and unforgiving language she uses in her speech exemplifies the fact that she is willing to accept the criticism   for   her   statements   as   a  trade-off   to   reach   out   to   an   audience   that is otherwise  “irredeemable” (Reilly).   In   order   to   win   these   “irredeemable”   Trump   supporters   over,   Clinton  realizes that   she   must   not highlight her best qualities, but highlight the worst of Trump’s supporters. This is exactly what she does in creating Bustillos’ “post-truth society”-- her misinformation extends the deplorables’ presence to a whopping   half of Trump’s voter base, while dismediation allows her to continue making claims based on this oversimplification and  keep the rest of   her argument intact (Bustillos 1,3).   Then, through the idea of spread, Clinton  capitalizes on the fact that no one wants to admit that they are in a political coalition with   racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. even if they know it, because as defined before, diversity is an important “American”   value.   And   finally,   Clinton   slows   down   her   speech   in   order   to   avoid   the  “mental effort”   of   truly   analyzing   the reasons individuals decide to vote for Trump, flattening  Trump supports   into either “deplorable,” or a “pitiful,” of   which   many   Trump   supporters   would

Madduri 7

group themselves into “deplorable” since Clinton associates such a downtrodden connotation to the “other basket.” Clinton thus attacks Trump’s voter base rather than just Trump to stage a two-fold attack    voters   to   force  on the Republican party: painting an Anti-American view of Trump and  his individuals considering voting for Trump to question their decisions. Trump has not yet created  legislation, passed   bills, or made executive decisions, but he has given rise to a voter base that  threatens the   “American”   ideal   of   unity,   and   Hillary   exploits   the   symbiosis   between   Trump   and  his voters   to   attack   Trump’s   campaign   through   the   worst   examples   within   his   voter   base.   And because her list of epithets are an accurate depiction of some of Trump’s voters, exaggerating  their presence to encompass a whopping   fifty percent   of   Trump’s   voter   base   illuminates   the threat Trump   poses,   leaving   less   dogmatic   Trump supporters   the moral issue of not only being  part of a coalition with such   hateful   views,   but   supporting   a candidate and voter base which feed  off one   another and threaten the   American values   of diversity and unity. Clinton’s “basket   of   deplorables”   thus   forces both introspection and a critical view   of   the  candidate within   individuals   considering   voting for Trump. The voter base is left to reflect on the company they have within the modern Republican party. Gaffe or not, the undeniable nuance within Clinton’s   speech   intends   to   leave   Trump   supporters   to deal with   the   bitter   aftertaste of  being associated with not   only a candidate, but also a party that endorses such   Anti-American  views.

Madduri 8

Works Cited

 wl ,  3  Nov. 2016, Bustillos, Maria.   “When   Truth   Falls   Apart”   The  A https://www.theawl.com/2016/11/when-truth- falls-apart/. Accessed 12 October 2017.  Cillizza, Chris. “Why   Mitt   Romney’s   ‘47   percent’   Comment   Was   So   Bad”   The   Washington  Post, 4 Mar.   2013,  www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/04/ why-mitt-romneys-47-percent-comment-was-so-bad/. Accessed   25   October   2017. 

 agazine,  Oct. 2012, Lerner, Ben.   “Contest   of   Words” Harper’s  M   pp. 60-66. Orwell, George.   “Politics   and   the   English   Language”   The  C  ollected  E  ssays, J ournalism, a nd

 eorge O  rwell,  ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angos, vol. 4, Letters o f  G   ed. 1.   New York: Harcourt, Brace,   Javanovich,   1968,   p. 127-140.  Reilly, Katie. "Read Hillary Clinton's 'Basket of Deplorables' Remarks on Trump Supporters".  TIME,  10   Sept. 2016,   time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript. Accessed 12 October   2017. 

Word count: 1997...