What is the author Arguing?
The author
here is trying to rise up against the horrible corruption of the government. He
is trying to convince other people that they are not being heard, their money
is being taken away from them by the wealthy, and that their businesses are
being controlled by the government. In the preamble, he talks about how the
Republicans and the Democrats have such a blood-thirsty hunger for power and
control that it has brought these awful conditions in which he lives in. He
says that the Government is so caught up in fighting over power that they are
ignoring ever other problem and silencing its country’s people.
He is trying
to argue that they need to essentially take a step back and reform the government
so that is it controlled by the “plain people”.
How does the author show this using
Logos (Logical), Pathos (Emotional), and Ethos (Credibility)?
He shows Logos
by calling out the government on all the crap it’s been doing. He says that the
government should be run by the plain people, “the class that it originated
from.” The author talks about how they have lost control over their government,
“They propose to drown the outcries of the plundered people with an uproar of
the sham battle over the tariff…” This can be both Logos and Pathos because he
calls the people plundered, like as though they have had some barbarians come
in and take everything that they own and beat down on them, but then he steps
in with Logos and talks about how the government is only fighting over the tax
and forgotten about everything else.
The author also
shows us Pathos through his passion. You can tell by reading the preamble that
he is highly affected by these conditions, and is very upset about the state of
his life. “We pledge ourselves that if given power we will labor to correct
these evils by wise and reasonable legislation…” He uses the word “evils” to
describe what the government has been doing. He also goes into how the country
should be held together by the love of its people, not by “pinning together its
bayonets.” Meaning that its people were bonded by the civil war, but now that
it’s over its bond should die with it. People should not be united by war,
especially with its own country.
He shows us
Ethos through his reasoning. He isn’t asking that the people overthrow the
government, he is asking for some changes in the ways things are run in a very
organized and reasonable manor. He didn’t just complain about the awful things
the government was doing for the whole document, he also gave us a solution to
the problem through the railroad being owned by the government, not by large
businesses, the land being owned by the settlers of this land, not by aliens for
profit, through a fair election ballot, etc. Everything that he asks of the government
to change is very reasonable.
What is the Historical Significance
of this piece?
The
historical significance of this piece is how even though the government had
only been formed not even 200 years before this, there had already been corruption
and problems in the power and responsibility given to the government. The author
of this piece was very brave as to stand up against the powerful government to
call them out on all their wrong doings and then tell them how to fix it. This
was probably very inspirational back when it was written and even today makes
me feel better that there were people out there who saw the corruption and
wanted to do something about it.
Do you agree with the author’s
argument?
I do
completely agree. He is a great writer, he organized his arguments very well,
and they were good arguments. This was just a man who was tired of being pushed
around and watching over people suffer while the government just fought for
power. I think that the government should be put in check every so often,
looked over by a 3rd party and evaluated on a lot of its decisions
because there should never be a time where the government has so much power
that they forget what is really important; the protection of its country’s
people.
I'm not so sure the problem is that government has too much power. I believe that the real issue at hand is that the government is not working for the greater good of the people. The government is controlled by the people, but too many people allow themselves to be influenced by the media who has an agenda of their own. It boggles my mind how so many Americans have been convinced to vote against their own best interest. Ignatius Donnelly touches on the subject of corrupted media, but obviously things were a little different then. Even in the early 80's, 50 corporations controlled a majority of American media. Now, there are six corporations controlling a majority of our media. This is an unhealthy situation. A democracy works best with an informed electorate, and we are far from that right now. If suddenly Americans decided to really get informed then I believe that the government would assert its power in a way that is positive for the people. Populism would rise again.
ReplyDeletei believe that the government was too courrupt so they didn't see what the people needed not because they had to much power. since being human makes you look pass the greater good, we come up with ideas that don't even help us. we make unhealthy decisions so we fail to help one another. i believe that when having too much power you can see pass things that are wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat I understand, like Jayson Boyd points out, the issue is not the government having too much power. What I understood from the reading is that there were a lot of elements that affected the law and therefore the lively hood of the people. We talk about lobbyist in the government today. I can only imagine that this is an art perfected over the years. The people who represent us need money to campaign. they get those funds by essentially selling their souls to the highest bidders.
ReplyDeleteThe author also talks about about the politics that we see before us and what happens in the background when he states that we think that tariffs are the issue but that's just back ground noise.
the wealthy in americ keep getting richer, they do this by driving down wages and fighting any labour organisations that would obviously fight against their interests. what a tragedy.
I also believe that the problem was not entirely the fact of the government having too much power but the fact that so many things were affecting the laws which people had to live by that the laws were the problem. But the government i believe since they do have so much power and say about what goes on in our country that they should have tried to do something to help their own people out instead of helping other countries people out. The government i do feel like, they are oblivious when it comes to having to look at their own country and admit that their people are not doing good because they believe that their country is running fine and that they are not screwing up even if its obvious they are. Because they have so much power they don't pay attention to what is actually going on, they look right past it and only think about the few good things that they are doing for us when it should be the other way around. In order to have a good, strong and caring country they need to try and make things easier on the plain people. They shouldn't make things so difficult to where they start to make the "wrong" decisions but that is all they are left with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a few people like Jasmine and Jayson as to the fact that the entire problem was not because of the fact that the government was having too much power but the fact that the laws were the problem. I do however think that you wrote a very well, strong piece that clearly demonstrates that you know pathos, egos, and logos. Well done. I believe that the government should have worked harder and focused more on the protection of their country and the people that reside in it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the author and his views of the government such as how he states that the businesses are being controlled by the government becuase i think that the businesses should be controlled becuase if there is no control then things will simply go out of control just like they did in '08 that we are just no coming back from. I think that our country needs to focus on itself as jasmine was saying since lately i feel we have been helping opthers but when we have a natural disaster, i didnt hear anything about anyone helping us out or sending help. The governemnt like Gracea had said should be watched over by a third party on it's important decisions, i think that is a great idea.
ReplyDelete