Investigating a Politician - Entry 3
Hello again! Last post, I gave examples of one type of Linkage Institution. Today, I will be analyzing another category of Linkage Institutions, Political Parties. I will be investigating the importance of politicians and the political parties they stand for. In class and within the content I am learning independently, I have learned that politicians are important to our democracy because they give a group of people one voice that will represent and argue for their relative stance on issues with our government. Their political party will fund raise in order to publicize and broadcast their stances in order to educate and inform the general population on the issues they are concerned about and their plans on fixing that issue. To further my understand on this aspect of our government, I will be picking a politician and a political party.
In order to choose which political party I resonated with, I researched the ideologies of the Constitutional Party, the Libertarian Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Green Party. At the end of my research, I discovered that I agreed the most with the Democratic Party. Some of the main beliefs of this political party that I agree with are : restoring economic security for the middle class, fighting for economic fairness and against inequality, combating climate change, making education affordable, and improving health care. These beliefs differ from the other political parties I've researched. For instance, the Constitutional Party does not favor a change in any of the principles of our founding historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. One of the specific stances in this party are in immigration which are based on the opinion that accommodating for immigrants is disrupting the principles and federal systems in America. The Democratic Party disagrees with this statement and believes that immigrants strengthen our country. Another example is the contrast to the Republican Party, who believes that all of these previous documents should not include flexibility and implied powers but should remain solid and unwavering. Within these beliefs this party specifically believes in the sacred traditional family, which in other words means that they believe in a parenting system of a mother and a father. This opposes the Democratic Parties stance on gay marriage.
One of the main issues I analysed from the Democratic Party was affordable education. From their website, I gathered that their opinion on this topic is that "every person from childhood to adulthood, despite their background, should have access to a high-quality education" from preschool to college. They have also conveyed through their website that they see college as too expensive and crippling for our society since people are not getting the education that they need and are required to have to make a sustainable living. They continue by saying that the coast of college should not be a barrier and debt should not get in the way of an individuals success. Although I agree with these claims, they do not seem realistic. They consistently use this-should-be-this-statements and empathetic tactics (pathos) but do not provide reasoning for their claims or a plan for how their vision will become a reality. Their argument would be stronger if they provided statistical evidence and a thought out and realistic plan on making this idea a comprehensible reality. These statements influence their targeted audience by giving them these utopian ideas worth protesting for but do not promote a plan that could make this idea worth listening to by the rest of the public.
After analyzing political parties, I picked a politician.
Without further ado...
In order to choose which political party I resonated with, I researched the ideologies of the Constitutional Party, the Libertarian Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Green Party. At the end of my research, I discovered that I agreed the most with the Democratic Party. Some of the main beliefs of this political party that I agree with are : restoring economic security for the middle class, fighting for economic fairness and against inequality, combating climate change, making education affordable, and improving health care. These beliefs differ from the other political parties I've researched. For instance, the Constitutional Party does not favor a change in any of the principles of our founding historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. One of the specific stances in this party are in immigration which are based on the opinion that accommodating for immigrants is disrupting the principles and federal systems in America. The Democratic Party disagrees with this statement and believes that immigrants strengthen our country. Another example is the contrast to the Republican Party, who believes that all of these previous documents should not include flexibility and implied powers but should remain solid and unwavering. Within these beliefs this party specifically believes in the sacred traditional family, which in other words means that they believe in a parenting system of a mother and a father. This opposes the Democratic Parties stance on gay marriage.
One of the main issues I analysed from the Democratic Party was affordable education. From their website, I gathered that their opinion on this topic is that "every person from childhood to adulthood, despite their background, should have access to a high-quality education" from preschool to college. They have also conveyed through their website that they see college as too expensive and crippling for our society since people are not getting the education that they need and are required to have to make a sustainable living. They continue by saying that the coast of college should not be a barrier and debt should not get in the way of an individuals success. Although I agree with these claims, they do not seem realistic. They consistently use this-should-be-this-statements and empathetic tactics (pathos) but do not provide reasoning for their claims or a plan for how their vision will become a reality. Their argument would be stronger if they provided statistical evidence and a thought out and realistic plan on making this idea a comprehensible reality. These statements influence their targeted audience by giving them these utopian ideas worth protesting for but do not promote a plan that could make this idea worth listening to by the rest of the public.
After analyzing political parties, I picked a politician.
Without further ado...
This is Brian Schatz.
I picked this politician because he reminded me of my former mentor, James Lajoie (RIP). Brian is the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii and a former State House Representative as well as a CEO of Helping Hand Hawaii. He currently serves on a 4 Senate Committee who are responsible for Hawaiian appropriations, banking, housing / urban affairs, commerce, science, and social security. Schatz is an advocate for the middle-class families, clean energy economics, veterans, and natives of Hawaii and affiliates himself with the Democratic Party. I continued a further investigation by looking at one of his recorded speeches on YouTube.
This speech was on Schatz's stance on the Republican Health Care Bill (aka Trump care). Schatz starts his speech out with the use of pathos by explaining the negative effects of the bill on Medicate patients, the elderly, patients with pre-existing conditions, the general female population, people addicted to opioids, and the working class. In order to support a component of this statement on the effect on the working class, Schatz uses a statistic but does not cite where he got it from. Schatz uses bias by focusing on the possible negative impacts of the bill and refusing to acknowledge the possible benefits of the bill. He continues his speech by stating a hyperbole that this bill is what he states : "embarrassment to democracy itself", which also shows bias by exaggerating his argument. He then explains this statement using logical reasoning (logos) by comparing how a bill is normally passed to how the process in which this specific bill is being passed. According to his elaboration, a bill is normally passed through a hearing and a makeup with an input on at least on of the following : Democrats, Republicans, a women, and the input of the general public. This bill has currently not gone through a hearing or a makeup and only consists of the opinions of 13 Republican men. This logical comparison makes this process seem unfair to the people they left out of this bill. At the end of this speech, Schatz uses a metaphor that compares this bill to fruit from a poisonous tree. This is to covey that this bill is a product of a flawed system. Overall, Schatz delivered a genuine speech on his and Hawaii's concerns on this particular bill, he did not give enough corroboration to mask his very evident bias.
Comments
Post a Comment