Political discourse analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2007)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(November 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Political discourse analysis is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings) as the phenomenon of interest.

Political discourse is the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem ^[1] . It is a science that has been used through the history of the United States. It is the essence of democracy. Full of problems and persuasion, political discourse is used in many debates, candidacies and in our everyday life.

[edit] Purpose of the Political Discourse Community

The purpose of political discourse is to create consensus among citizens as to which course of action will best solve a problem (such as poverty, crime, drug abuse, America’s economic health, racism) ^[2]. In political discourse, problems are often presented and solutions are attached to people. By attaching solutions onto people, candidates are chosen who solve problems on behalf of the citizens.

Destructive forms of political persuasion should be avoided as they (a) divert time and energy from the real need of citizens to engage in political discourse and (b) damage both the short-term health for our democracy ^[3]. In political discourses, candidates must prove they are the most credible, most logical and emotionally congruent to the voters. This is so important that discourse members will discredit others to improve the credit of themselves. Again, this is a problem because in discrediting others, the issues at hand are being ignored.

[edit] Members of the Political Discourse Community

Millions of people participate in political discourse communities everyday, through the use of bloggers. ^[4] Participation in political discourse communities also occurs when reading and partaking of political topics discussed in newspapers, on television and even on billboards.

George Orwell deplores the decline in the level of modern political discourse. He argues that over the past fifty years, the problem has gotten worse. ^[5] It has been argued^[who?] that due to the overwhelming boom in technology, and increasing number of speech writers, the art of rhetoric has declined.

In presenting a position to the electorate, candidates should prepare well-reasoned and thoughtful positions characterized by valid information and logic ^[6]. Presenting valid information and logic will produce credibility with one’s audience, while continuing to be attached to the issues. The more thought and preparation put into an argument the better the resulting decision will be.

The positions presented should be given a ‘trial-by-fire’ through a critical analysis while at the same time their advocates should be given respect, encouragement, and admiration for having the courage and skills to present their views and engage in political discourse ^[7]. Although vote’s bottom line is the position of the candidate, we must strictly consider the issue and not the candidate. Considering the pros and cons of the argument will ultimately lead to the best possible decision.

The rights of political minorities should be rigorously protected, as all citizens will be part of a political minority at some time ^[8]. In a democracy, the people or the majority rule, however, the minority is a persuading factor in all decisions made.

[edit] References

1. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
2. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
3. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
4. ^ Flannery, Pat. “Blogs changing political discourse, shaping media converage”. May 14, 2006. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0514blogpolitics0507.html.
5. ^ Robinson, Peter. “Lost for Words: Politics and the English Language”. November 16, 2000. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/3412991.html
6. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
7. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
8. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.