Is a public figure’s rhetoric always actively chosen?
Why is this an important choice?
How does a public figure’s rhetoric define them?
How can rhetoric, both past and present, help shape a person’s image?
How much can rhetoric really affect your image?
What advantage is there to dumbing yourself down? To making yourself seem smarter?
What is the ideal image for a certain candidate and how can they go about achieving this image through what they say?
Are traditional standards of rhetoric changing?
Is this a positive or negative change?
How can you compare the rhetoric of different candidates?
Most people are flooded with political rhetoric every day. Whether it be via news sources or random internet fodder, the words and promises of politicians and soon to be lawmakers are shown to all of us at a rate faster than ever before.
People also have familiarity with language itself. As functioning social beings, not only can we understand the words we all say, but we understand how to interpret these words and the ways in which they’re said. We can tell when someone is lying, when something someone says seems out of character or forced, and we have a clear reaction to it.
What I aim to do to help the reader familiarize with my piece is to refocus the question. I don’t intend to ask, what do you think of what this person is saying? Instead I’m interested in the decisions that led them to say it the way they did. I’m interested in the active decision to portray themselves a certain way and the methods in which they go about achieving it.