Essay About Traditional Speech And American President

How Could the Text Be Read and Interpreted by Two Different Readers?English EssayHow could the text be read and interpreted by two different readers?The ‘State of the Union’ address is a traditional speech that the American president gives each year and it is held in House Chamber at the United States capitol. In 2003, George W. Bush was president and, as his father said, he ‘faced the greatest challenge of any president since Abraham Lincoln,’ 1 referring to the war against terrorism. The speech was televised so all Americans could listen to the ideas presented. However, there was a physical audience conformed by the government members and distinguished US citizens. Bush was well supported by the majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives because they belonged to his party. While the Republican congressmen had a positive reaction towards the four major propaganda techniques that Bush used in the ‘State of the Union’ address, the Democrats had a completely opposite response.

First, he made an assertion about the ‘state of the union’ showed in line 12, where he declares that ‘the union is strong.’ Even though there is not a way of measuring the ‘strength’ of a country, no American should question this statement for two reasons: first, Bush is a trustworthy speaker because he is a well-respected politician who was the president at that time and second, questioning that the country is strong will show anti-patriotism. After the speech, the Republicans might have been cheerful because their leader was telling them that their country was powerful and that there were not internal conflicts that triggered its stability. Even so, Democrats did not agree with this affirmation. Actually, some of them described the state of the union as anxious, pointing out the society’s nervousness over the economy and the idea of war. The assertion supposedly should have had a positive response from both parties but Democrats achieved to oppose to it without being anti-patriotic. 2

Political speeches normally create a fictitious problem to force the audience to chose a side. There is a false dilemma presented in this speech in lines 13-15. Essentially, the conflict is simple because it only has two options: Americans can fight together against terrorism or they can deny the problem and pass it to future generations. Since the second option is unethical because nobody would give a burden to their children, the citizens are pressured to support the war at that moment. The president increased the emotional response of the audience towards the false dilemma by constantly pinpointing the enemy. For example, in line 19, he said that the war was against a network of killers. By using this words, he wants to clarify that America is fighting against a worldwide organization of murders, not amateur rebels. Definitely, the federalist party thought that war was imminent

The audience is not fooled as the president is told. Since the second option is unethical, many people assume that all Americans are happy to fight, not what they think is most important. The President then proceeds to play defense. Because he is being blamed for the problems of a group who refuse to give up to the enemy, the crowd continues to hold up the political position that has been presented to them through speeches. If they were to try to argue that they did not have the ability to defend, many people would jump to the conclusion that their opposition is simply irrelevant and that some of them are simply fighting against the other.

We may remember when we were young that the Americans had no interest in fighting because they wanted to prove their superiority. The American public, especially the young, became more comfortable with the use of military solutions. Americans began to believe that they “had the power”. As a result they began to believe that a “right” had to be defended against a right. With this in mind they decided, “We have to defend it”. Now, on a large scale, they do not feel ready to fight. On many occasions, children ask for help. The U.S. government is the world’s largest provider of military aid, and is working tirelessly for children in Afghanistan in order to help prevent a repeat of the tragic events in Iraq. In fact, according to a 2013 poll by the U.S. Military Association, 1 in 5 children in Afghanistan suffer from a mental retardation disorder, and an estimated 100,000 are enrolled in special education.

The problem of a false dilemma in speech is not only because the real problem is that in this scenario a foreign terrorist organization will not be able to attack America. This terrorist organization will be able to use any means necessary to protect itself from the American people. The question is not which alternative this terrorist organization would choose: one of multiple options that are designed to achieve the same end, either through political or economic means, though it will depend on the other. The question becomes the question of the truth of the argument. The false dilemma simply asks the audience to decide whether or not anyone or something is good. At this point, the choice is always between a good and evil. This is why we are concerned with the problem of the false dilemma.

The truth has to be presented in all its detail. Truth is the understanding that if we do not speak truthly, we will be wrong: when we do, we are responsible for the problem we are living with, not the truth about our situation. Truth is the understanding that there is no evil, that only the actions of evil can make such a difference. Truth is the understanding that evil will never come about in the world unless it is deliberately put in place — that is, unless we choose the consequences and not our actions. The problem of a false dilemma lies in the question of where truth lies. Truth is not only the belief that our actions are correct, but also the belief that there is an action that can be avoided without compromising our actions and not in a direct way that might compromise our interests.

How does Truth work? Truth arises after the action, or choice, of the person. If the person is a bad person then the question begins: ‘who will you be if you tell me this?’ Truth is found in a multitude of facts. Facts about someone’s accomplishments, their background, and their achievements. The result is that there is good information to be found that is helpful to the U.S. government if it would be done in a