The linguistic skills of public officials and their abilities to talk important or pressing events while saying relatively nothing about them is a common and frustrating experience. Our recent chapters on fallacies equip us with a language to identify these departures and better understand the discourse at work.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is on a tour of multiple Middle Eastern States right now, recently said the following:
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State: "It’s a pleasure, once again, for me to welcome my colleague and counterpart, the foreign minister of Bahrain. He’s been here in consultations with many officials of our government, members of Congress, others who care deeply about Bahrain and our important relationship. And I’m looking forward to a wide-ranging, comprehensive discussion of our full agenda."
As this statement read, one can infer that US-Bahraini relations remain warm. Despite this, Bahrain is involved, as have been other Middle Eastern states in the news, in suppressing a resurgence in popular dissent that has by some press sources become deadly. Also in the background is a proposed $53 million dollar arms deal with the country that another State Department spokesperson said would help Bahrain improve its “external defenses” ( http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/27/headlines#16 ).
I see the following fallacies in this diplomats language: Appeal to the People – Conscious of the curiosity of the international community regarding the crackdown and arms deal, this is a direct appeal to the people by the State Department in their attempt to portray the Bahraini government in favorable terms by describing close, “important relationship” and multi-level “consultations” with members of our own government. They may be a twinge of vanity here as well by placing the foreign minister in league with our elected leadership, who enjoy at least a bit of esteem, credibility, and character by coming to their powerful positions by generally valued, socially legitimate process. The reference to a “wide-ranging, comprehensive discussion of our full agenda” strikes me as a bit of a red herring as well, where while one aware if the specific current problems in Bahrain may infer that these could be part of the discussion, it obscures the perception of the country by brining now attention to what could be generally agreed on as an ongoing international concern.
This is pretty interesting. It is cool to see the fallacies in real text instead of just textbook examples. Hillary Clinton probably used these fallacies on purpose to draw the attention of her listeners and or readers. She sounds very true to the fact that she is happy to have the minister of Bahrain here, when she may not be happy at all. Good choice. This one definitely sparked and interest in me.
ReplyDelete