Steve Re: Inspired by Lance... again.

There is a book in my library called The Plug-in Drug. It parallels the action of television programming (and by extension, movies) with that of other drug usage. I often notice in myself that the mind turns off (no comments, guys!) as I go with the emotional flow dictated by the program. While looking about, I can see others have gone slack-jawed and glassy-eyed as well. Children seem especially prone to this action. Information bypasses centers of critical thought and acts directly on powerful areas of emotion and sentiment. One may seldom stop to think that the program is produced and directed in its entirety to elicit certain feelings. Even the music is used for this manipulative intention. It brings to mind the old SNL skits with Jon Lovitz as ‘Master Thespian’ as he dramatically cries, ‘Acting!’.

Rhetorical language is used in this same way. It is often the case that a single word is used to evoke an emotion by its sentimental connotation and bypass critical thinking without specific definition. Usually they flagrantly set the speaker onto the ‘moral high ground’ and his critics on defense. It is more subtle, but of the same genre as ‘political correctness’.

Lance recently posted on his own blog an article about the over-ease of voting that exhibited a great illustration of this use of language. Governor Doyle, in his veto of a bill that would have required identification to vote, used as his entire argument the emotional word ‘disenfranchisement’. The use of this word assumes many things freely without requiring logical definition. He took the ‘moral high ground’ from his political opposition without the substantive work of thought, proof, or logic. To be disenfranchised is a passive verb form that connotes evil being done to the helpless weak by the rich, powerful, or otherwise guilty society. To the extent that this may be true, no proof is offered, but the rhetorically indicted culture must bend over and grab its ankles while performing all acts of self-flagellation in hopes of atoning for its sin.

The actual cause of disenfranchisement is standards. In culture, standards often are exhibited in law. One who breaks the law is an outlaw. He then is disenfranchised in some manner; from money, freedom, or life. A convicted murderer or rapist should be disenfranchised. Although there are some that would claim that society is still responsible, most would say that this disenfranchisement is just. Is Doyle equating ID requirement disenfranchisement to the same action toward a rapist? By connotation he is saying that we are treating them in the same way.

Some standards could be overtly set to exclude persons according to race or sex. Is Doyle using this word to equate it to this? By his connotation, I would say that he was.

No matter what standards are set there will be those that cannot or will not meet them and thereby become ‘disenfranchised’. Doyle’s use of the word sneaks those that will not conform in with those who cannot by use of statistics trying to include them as being passively abused and thereby increasing society’s evil.

Perhaps it could better be said of Governor Doyle’s rhetorical use of this word that he would rather disenfranchise the whole Wisconsin electorate– black, white, hispanic, male, female, conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, homosexual, and straight– in order to enfranchise the criminal frauds among us. He does this from his groundless ‘high moral ground’ in the supposed name of a very few.

This use of connotative rhetoric will continue to increasing in effectiveness as the culture continues to slip away from its Christian underpinnings and assume an atheistic, post-modern, amoral stance. When one has no anchor in absolute standards, he is easily swayed by emotionally weighted language even though undefined and, in actuality, meaningless. Ironically... ‘like sheep being led to slaughter’.