In todays culture politicians use many different tactics to get the people on their side but appealing to emotions is probably one of the most common tricks they use. The crazy thing is that it actually works, when watching these debates some people may not paying close attention so when a touching story is told as the one Martin O' Malley tells then the viewers lose focus from the initial question and are now more interested in the story. Voting for a president shouldn't be similar to voting for someone on American Idol, the people should care more about the candidates plan to better the country rather than their personal experiences that may not even pertain to the issues that this country faces. Having the public be more attentive to these debates or political campaign advertisements then this fallacy can be exposed on a greater level.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Martin O' Malley Appeals to emotions
During a Democratic Debate in October Martin O' Malley was asked on what he would do to convince congress to pass gun control legislation in which Malley responded with how many political candidates would answer a question and that is to appeal to the public's emotions. Malley begins to reference the Aurora shooting and talks specifically about a family who had lost their daughter and the struggles they went through in the courts. This story then leads to a rant about the NRA but he yet has truly answered the question.
In todays culture politicians use many different tactics to get the people on their side but appealing to emotions is probably one of the most common tricks they use. The crazy thing is that it actually works, when watching these debates some people may not paying close attention so when a touching story is told as the one Martin O' Malley tells then the viewers lose focus from the initial question and are now more interested in the story. Voting for a president shouldn't be similar to voting for someone on American Idol, the people should care more about the candidates plan to better the country rather than their personal experiences that may not even pertain to the issues that this country faces. Having the public be more attentive to these debates or political campaign advertisements then this fallacy can be exposed on a greater level.
In todays culture politicians use many different tactics to get the people on their side but appealing to emotions is probably one of the most common tricks they use. The crazy thing is that it actually works, when watching these debates some people may not paying close attention so when a touching story is told as the one Martin O' Malley tells then the viewers lose focus from the initial question and are now more interested in the story. Voting for a president shouldn't be similar to voting for someone on American Idol, the people should care more about the candidates plan to better the country rather than their personal experiences that may not even pertain to the issues that this country faces. Having the public be more attentive to these debates or political campaign advertisements then this fallacy can be exposed on a greater level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello, Jamie!
ReplyDeleteAlthough my blog post was focused primarily on a presidential campaign ad from Marco Rubio, I also chose to comment on the frequency of Appeal to Emotion in politics. Humans are inherently emotional beings, and when confronted with misfortune and tragedy, our hearts can sometimes speak more loudly than our minds. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes deception in politics that much easier. I agree with you that greater care and attention needs to be paid to how these candidates are actually addressing the issues posed to them. Difficult as it may be, I think that trying to take a step back and remove yourself (temporarily, of course) from emotion so as to view the situation from a strictly objective point of view would help greatly with this.
Apologies, I meant to write Jaime!
DeleteHello Jaime!
ReplyDeleteGreat post about how politicians use emotion to appeal to an audience. It is very true how many politicians use emotion as an advantage to get people in their side of an argument. Especially when the emotions are expressed from events such as mass shootings, 9/11, terror attacks, etc. Many Americans feel sympathetic towards tragic events such as these and politicians use this feeling of sympathy to create a sense of unity with the audience. It is sometimes effective to use emotion when an answer to the question is given by the speaker. O'Malley in this case did not specify how he would convince Congress to pass gun control legislation, therefore he did not truly answer the question just like you said. Overall, appealing to emotion is good to use sometimes, but giving a more formal and direct response would be more effective in a political debate.
Interesting post. I wonder if O'Malley is saying he'd use the appeal to emotion fallacy to try to convince congress to pass stronger legislation? If Newtown, Aurora, Littleton, what just happened in Kansas, and a slew of almost-daily mass shootings haven't done it, then I agree with you--O'Malley is trying to connect more with viewers through emotions than showing what he'd do to affect legislation!
ReplyDelete