I was not able to physically attend one
of the caucus meetings on Tuesday, but I was able to research the
kind of communication and rhetoric that is affecting this year's politics. From
what I know about politics, the candidate stands in front of a group
of people, usually a large mass, who are either for or against their
argument or stance. This rhetorical device helps the candidate
present his/her views on a bias and non-bias scale.
Here are some other rhetorical devices
or approaches that I have found through research:
Markus Koppensteiner and two
others in their article
“Moving speeches: Dominance, trustworthiness and competence in body motion”,
discuss how body movement or language gauge their dominance and
trustworthiness levels. For example, according to their research,
“Male speakers from the opposition were rated higher on dominance
but lower on trustworthiness than speakers from other groups.”
Social
media and digital media are significant contributors to the
political scene. Caucuses and political debates are always televised
and/or put online on blogs, social networks, etc. This also affects
citizens themselves. Yonghwan Kim said in his article
“Social media and online political participation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives”,
“Previous studies have demonstrates that news media use indirectly
influences citizens' participatory behaviors via psychological
variable such as political efficacy.” This is because social media
has created false identities of people, so why not the politicians
as well?
Looking
more into the social/digital media aspect (because that is what I am
researching for my project), it has affected all aspects of life,
including politics. My argument is that social media is adversely
affecting civilization through personal relationships since personal
relationships are one of the things that hold society together;
politics do as well, so when media starts to negatively affect
politics, then civilization is in trouble.