Jerit discusses the use of rhetoric through a political lens based on the effectiveness of arguments. She constitutes effectiveness as the sustainability and repeatability of techniques used to deliver the points of the candidates. The reason for negative appeals is that, “candidates have strong incentives to evoke emotions such as anger, fear, and anxiety; thus, appeals that are high in emotional content will survive longer than other types of arguments” (564). When using emotional appeals, it is easier to deliver a simple and uniform message than to speak on specific issues.
How persuasive a candidate is perceived as depends on their delivery techniques. “If they use a particular technique frequently, we can infer that this technique …show more content…
Both are negative appeals, which contribute to drama and excitement, thus influencing our relationship with politics. When using these negative emotional arguments, it is easier to talk about and express fear and anger than what is causing it.
The key to political rhetoric is how the tactics used are consistent, “the feelings political candidates seek to evoke with their campaign rhetoric – feelings of fear, anxiety, and anger – will be more invariant” (568). While the content of messages may differ over time and between candidates, the tools used to deliver the message remains the same because of the lasting success and power it has.
1. What is the difference in the way we react to political statements?
a. With any argument, we react initially to emotion rather than intellect. Emotion is general and something everyone can relate to because it grabs attention. With emotional appeals, it is more affective to speak in terms of something in general rather than using intellect and focusing on specifics. We react emotionally first, and then after the initial reaction, we are able to reevaluate the argument and our response using intellect and knowledge. “Citizens routinely rely on feelings when evaluating political stimuli
How persuasive a candidate is perceived as depends on their delivery techniques. “If they use a particular technique frequently, we can infer that this technique …show more content…
Both are negative appeals, which contribute to drama and excitement, thus influencing our relationship with politics. When using these negative emotional arguments, it is easier to talk about and express fear and anger than what is causing it.
The key to political rhetoric is how the tactics used are consistent, “the feelings political candidates seek to evoke with their campaign rhetoric – feelings of fear, anxiety, and anger – will be more invariant” (568). While the content of messages may differ over time and between candidates, the tools used to deliver the message remains the same because of the lasting success and power it has.
1. What is the difference in the way we react to political statements?
a. With any argument, we react initially to emotion rather than intellect. Emotion is general and something everyone can relate to because it grabs attention. With emotional appeals, it is more affective to speak in terms of something in general rather than using intellect and focusing on specifics. We react emotionally first, and then after the initial reaction, we are able to reevaluate the argument and our response using intellect and knowledge. “Citizens routinely rely on feelings when evaluating political stimuli