Dana D. Nelson's Bad For Democracy

On July 4, 1776, colonists risked their lives and the lives of their future generations to fight the most powerful nation at the time, Great Britain. The period around 1960’s America was known as the Civil Rights Movement where African Americans risked their lives and self-respect facing ideologies that had no moral or ethical grounds. What these two events have in common is that people gathered together to fight for the right to participate in their system of governance: to participate in a democracy. What does it mean to participate in a democracy if people are willing to lose their lives over the right to do so? In this regard, Dana D. Nelson in Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People and Eitan D. Hersh in …show more content…
Hersh claims that the issue with the democratic system is that people engage in politics in an incorrect manner which he labels as “political hobbyism” (Hersh, 1). He defines “political hobbyism” (Hersh) as treating politics as “something [someone] does for fun rather than out of profound moral obligation” (Hersh, 3). In the definition of political hobbyism, Hersh uses diction to juxtapose the acts of “political hobbyism” (Hersh) and the acts of what he deems qualified participation. When explaining the unqualified participation, Hersh uses the word “fun” which is an example of concrete diction because it evokes feelings of playfulness, recreation, or even some type of hobby. When explaining the qualified participation, Hersh uses the modifier “profound” to emphasize the expression “moral obligation” which stimulates a sense of duty or something that must be performed …show more content…
Throughout the passage, Hersh uses language that stimulates a more modern sense of problem framing. In the contemporary society, social media has become the hallmark of modern mainstream culture. People acquire all sorts of social networking accounts and speak with colloquial terms commonly known as text message lingo, or in other words, language not appropriate for academic writing. Hersh uses such language when he writes, “reinforcing their views with like-minded friends on Facebook...Even in the serious moments since the 2016 election...Elizabeth Warren ‘destroying’ Betsy DeVos” (2). Besides overtly stating a current event to establish the issue of “political hobbyism” (Hersh), Hersh also expresses the modern act of posting feelings on social media networks such as Facebook, and the use of modern colloquial terms such as “destroying” when he was describing the actions of “political hobbyists” (Hersh). Similarly, Hersh points out that “political hobbyism” (Hersh) has recently become the forefront of participation in democracy when he argues, “The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation” (Hersh, 3). Hersh claims that the issue of political hobbyism is a current event which can be seen by his use of the words “is replacing” (Hersh, 3) rather than “has replaced” or “will