Propuneri de articole spre publicare (max 500 cuvinte)
Pentru a propune un articol de maximum 500 de cuvinte care vrei sa fie publicat pe site, trimite-ni-l la adresa : ropresident2009@gmail.com
Pentru a propune un articol de maximum 500 de cuvinte care vrei sa fie publicat pe site, trimite-ni-l la adresa : ropresident2009@gmail.com
Buna. Imi place ideea voastra de proiect antimanipulare, e cel putin interesanta. Am o idee despre campania lui Obama din 2008, vazuta dintr-o perspectiva generala, fiind un simplu observator est-european. Sunt student si as vrea sa lucrez pe ideea asta, poate gasim asemanari. va trimit o varianta a lui maine -poimaine.
Sper sa fiti interesa(n)ti.
Salutari
A
salut, i (nu prea imi vine sa scriu numele cu care te-ai semnat),
trimite textul. noi ne asteptam sa gasesti asemanari si deosebiri, ca ne intereseaza campania electorala de acum, de la noi. dupa decembrie o sa ne ocupam si de alte probleme, accent pe sua, europa, asia, vedem. acum musai sa gasesti o asemanare-ceva, ca sa putem sa legam de campania roamneasca. te asteptam
vezi ca ai o semnatura care exista deja pe piata, e adevarat, cu literele despratite de punct. cred ca e unfair. schimba, te rog, semnatura, ca sa nu creezi confuzii. oricum nu se publica decit un material care spune ceva. la rigoare, nu ar avea de ce sa fie nemultumita persoana cu identitatea de mai sus. totusi, schimba, te rog, semnatura. multumim.
Hmmmmm. parca vad un articol care o sa tamiieze pe obama, ca e la moda tamiierea lui. eu va propun sa fim realisti si sa trecem putin dincolo de obama, care are un discurs foarte special si analiza lui, singura, nu poate sa devina relevanta pentru modul american de a face politica externa.
nu vreau sa va dau lectii despre cum se manipuleaza in america si cum manipuleaza america la nivel global. e unul mai destept care o face intr-o analiza stiintifica, in care spune despre cum se creaza prin discurs prezidential inamicul americii. am selectat niste fragmente. studiul merita citit, fara ura si fara minie. da, eu gasesc asemanari intre manipularea romaneasca si cea americana, doar traim in lumea pluralismului manipularii, nu?
Uite selectiile din studiul despre cum se creeaza dusmanul in politica externa americana, cu linkul revistei cu tot.
International Journal of Communication 2 (2008), 830-847 1932-8036/20080830
Copyright © 2008 (Jason A. Edwards). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial
No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org.
http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/264/196
Defining the Enemy for the Post-Cold War World:
Bill Clinton’s Foreign Policy Discourse in Somalia and Haiti
JASON A. EDWARDS
Bridgewater State College
“American presidents use images of savagery to identify and construct America’s
adversaries, especially prior to and during some form of armed intervention. During the
Cold War, presidents used images of modern savagery to craft a Soviet enemy and its
proxies. In the post-Cold War world, Bill Clinton did not have the luxury of a monolithic
enemy to organize American foreign policy. He faced a threat environment that was
more complex, transnational, and diffuse. Within this environment, I argue Clinton used
images of primitive and modern savagery to define America’s adversaries. An analysis
of Clinton’s discourse reveals that his use of both of these rhetorical forms broadened
how presidents construct America’s enemies. Moreover, the use of both images of
savagery provided a rhetorical flexibility that was needed for the threat environment of
the post-Cold War world. This essay contributes to deeper understandings of
presidential rhetoric in general and crisis rhetoric in particular.”
(…)”The world can be a bizarre and scary place for many (Kuusisto, 1998). They count upon the
president to offer a semblance of order to the world around us, and it is through the use of language that
presidents convey that sense of order. It is through rhetoric that presidents can inform the populace of
what goes on in the international arena. It is through presidential rhetoric where many come to
understand the outside world. Thus, rhetoric becomes a primary instrument for presidential foreign
policy.“
(…) “Now to create these images of savagery, rhetors employ various topoi or specific lines of
argument, which Robert Ivie referred to as “decivilizing vehicles.” These vehicles are rhetorical conduits
that describe the enemy itself and/or the particular acts of the savage (Ivie, 2004). These topoi are used
to articulate “the key contrastive features distinguishing civilized from savage agents while synthesizing
several dimensions of meaning into an integrated threat” (Ivie, 2004, p. 79). In other words, decivilizing
vehicles shape the savage agent as a negative force while implying the United States as a force for good.
There are two contrastive features a rhetor may utilize to demonize the enemy. First, rhetors
may use derogatory terms such as referring to an adversarial agent as a “terrorist,” a “murderer,” a
“barbarian,” a “thug,” a “dictator,” and/or a litany of other names. Second, the president may accuse the
agent(s) and their forces of specific acts of aggression such as arson, forced migration, rape, or murder.
By delineating these actions, his rhetoric demonstrated the true savage nature of the enemy with the
implication being that no civilized agent, especially the United States, would commit the wanton rape,
torture, and murder against anyone, let alone innocents. Thus, people who commit such acts must be
savages. Using images of primitive savagery has a long history within the United States, primarily in
portrayals of Native Americans. Political leaders, the media, and popular culture have depicted Native
Americans as being “emblematic of chaos” who were “living without government,” leading lives that were
freed from the “restraints of family, church, and village,” but engaged in acts of “incest, cannibalism, devil
worship, and murder” (Rogin, 1987, p. 45). According to this argument, Native Americans were devoid of
any semblance of civilization. Consequently, native peoples needed to be “civilized,” which entailed
various paternal relationships in which the U.S. government declared the tribes as “wards” while the
government was their “guardian.” According to the government, these relationships could help move
Native Americans from the habits of barbarism to the habits of civilization (Rogin, 1987). The implication
of this discourse was that it supplied ample justification for the government’s forced removal of indigenous
peoples, along with the rape, torture, and murder of tens of thousands.”
(…) “Cultivating an image of the enemy serves three functions. First, the use of decivilizing vehicles
literalizes the enemy. The enemy, who has been constructed as savage, actually appears as a savage in
the minds of the audience (Bates, 2004; Ivie, 2004). Second, the use of those decivilizing vehicles strips
away any qualities of civilization attributable to the agent, making it untenable for audiences to identity
with that enemy. When the adversary is rhetorically contrasted with the United States, this description
gives the appearance of American superiority. Finally, cultivating an image of the “other” helps the
president rally public support for his decision to intervene through forces of arms (Bates, 2004; Edelman,
1988). Constructing an enemy provides a focal point for the public to direct their anger. A specific enemy,
typically, supplies the motive for America’s use of force.
(…) Finally, Clinton’s use of both primitive and modern savagery may have left a symbolic legacy for
future presidents in terms of how they define and manage various threats. A symbolic legacy is, as Olson
(2004) put it, “the symbolic frames that it makes available for reproduction” (p. 309). Surely, future
American presidents will engage in the use of force and perhaps need the availability of both enemy
constructs in their rhetorical arsenal. President George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq resembles Clinton’s
definition of enemies in similar ways. For example, at the outset, President Bush defined Saddam Hussein
as the ultimate modern savage, a centralized agent who could use the coordination of his government
institutions to cause havoc for the United States and its allies. However, once Saddam Hussein was
removed from power, Bush’s depictions of the enemy changed. Bush continued to lay the blame upon the
usual suspects such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but the president also resorted to defining the Iraqi enemy in
diffuse terms, as Clinton did in Somalia. One representative instance can be found in the 2005 White
House document entitled “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” In that document, the administration
argued that the “enemy” in Iraq is a group of “rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists” (p. 5). The
enemy shares an opposition to the elected Iraqi government, but otherwise has “separate and to some
extent incompatible goals” (p. 5). As in Somalia, the Bush administration portrays the Iraqi belligerents
as a diffuse, fragmented, uncoordinated group that causes daily lawlessness. But the fragmented,
uncoordinated nature of the Iraqi enemy makes it just as “primitive” as the enemy within Somalia.
Hence, you have Bush depicting America’s enemies in both modern and primitive terms to manage the
conflict. Considering that the threats facing the United States are not about to abate anytime soon, one
may find future presidents constructing enemies in both primitive and moder.”
References
Bass, J.D. & Cherwitz, R.A. (1978). Imperial mission and manifest destiny. Southern Speech
Communication Journal, 47, 213-222.
Bates, B. R. (2004). Audiences, metaphors, and the Persian Gulf War. Communication Studies, 55,
447-463.
Beasley, V.B. (2004). You the people: American national identity in presidential rhetoric. College Station,
TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Besteman, C. (1999). Unraveling Somalia: Race, violence, and the legacy of slavery. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bostdorff, D.M. (1994). The presidency and the rhetoric of foreign crisis. Columbia, SC: University of
South Carolina Press.
Bowden, M. (1999). Black hawk down: A story of modern war. New York: Grove Atlantic.
Burke, K. (1961). The rhetoric of religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Butler, J.R. (2002). Somalia and the imperial savage: Continuities in the rhetoric of war. Western Journal
of Communication, 66, 1-24.
Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K.H. (1990). Deeds done in words: Presidential rhetoric and the genres of
governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cameron, F. (2002). U.S. foreign policy after the Cold War. London: Routledge.
Cherwitz, R.A., & Zagacki, K. (1986). Consummatory versus justificatory crisis rhetoric. Western Journal
of Communication, 50, 311-325.
Clinton, W.J. (1993a, January 20). Inaugural address. The public papers of the President (pp. 1-4).
Washington, D.C: United States Government Printing Office.
Clinton, W.J. (1993b, May 5). Remarks on welcoming military personnel returning from Somalia. The
public papers of the president (pp. 565-566). Washington, D.C: United States Government
Printing Office.
Clinton, W.J. (1993c, June 12). The president’s radio address. The public papers of the president (pp.
839-840). Washington, D.C: United States Government Printing Office.
844 Jason A. Edwards International Journal of Communication 2(2008)
Clinton, W.J. (1993d, October 7). Address to the nation on Somalia. The Public papers of the president
(pp. 1703-1706). Washington, D.C: The United States Government Printing Office.
Clinton, W.J. (1994, September 15). Address to the nation on Haiti. The public papers of the president
(pp. 1558-1562). Washington, D.C.: The United States Government Printing Office.
Cole, T.M. (1999). Avoiding the quagmire: Alternative rhetorical constructions for the post-Cold War
world. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 2, 367-393.
Coles, R. L. (2002). Manifest destiny adapted for 1990’s war discourse: Mission and destiny intertwined.
Sociology of Religion, 63, 403-426.
Cottam, M.A. (1992). Contending dramas in American foreign policy. In M. L. Cottam & C. Shin (Eds.)
Contending dramas: A cognitive approach to international organizations (pp. 132-158).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dauber, C. (2001). The shot seen around the world: The impact of the images of Mogadishu on American
military operations. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 4, 653-687.
Denton, R.E., Jr., & Woodward, G.C. (1990). Political communication in America, 2nd edition. New York:
Praeger.
Dorsey, L. (2002). The presidency and rhetorical leadership. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University
Press.
Drinnon, R. (1980). Facing the west: The metaphysics of Indian-hating and empire building. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edwards, J.A. (2006). Foreign policy rhetoric for the post-Cold War world: Bill Clinton and America’s
foreign policy vocabulary. Unpublished Dissertation. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Edwards, J.A., & Stevenson, K.A. (2006). The peacekeeping mission: Bill Clinton and Bosnia. A paper
presented at the 2006 Eastern Communication Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Hargrove, E. (1998). The president as leader: Appealing to the better angels of our nature. Lawrence,
KS: University of Kansas Press.
Hirsh, J. L., & Oakley, R. (1996). Somalia and Operation Restore Hope: Reflections on peacemaking and
peacekeeping. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
International Journal of Communication 2 (2008) Defining the Enemy in the Post-Cold War World 845
Hinds, L.B., & Windt, Jr., T.O. (1991). The Cold War as rhetoric: The beginnings, 1945-1950. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Hyland, W.G. (1999). Clinton’s world: The remaking of American foreign policy. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1999.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after
major wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ivie, R.L. (1974). Presidential motives for war. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 337-345.
Ivie, R.L. (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications for war. Communication Monographs, 47,
279-290.
Ivie, R.L. (1982). The metaphor of force in prowar discourse: The case of 1812. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 68, 240-253.
Ivie, R.L. (1984). Speaking ‘common sense’ about the Soviet threat: Reagan’s rhetorical stance. The
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 39-50.
Ivie, R.L. (1987). The ideology of freedom’s ‘fragility’ in foreign policy argument. Journal of the American
Forensic Association, 24, 27-36.
Ivie, R. L. (2004). Democracy, war, and decivilizing metaphors of American insecurity. In F.A. Beer & C.
de Landtscheer Metaphorical global politics (pp. 75-90). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Judis, J.B. (2004). The folly of empire: What George W. Bush could learn from Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson. New York: Scribner.
Kane, T. (1991). Foreign policy suppositions and commanding ideas. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28,
80-90.
Kiewe, A. (1991). The modern presidency and crisis rhetoric. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kuusisto, R. (1998). Framing wars in the Gulf and Bosnia: The rhetorical definitions of western power
leaders in action. Journal of Peace Research, 35, 603-620.
Kuypers, J.A. (1997). Presidential crisis rhetoric and the press in the Post-Cold War World. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
846 Jason A. Edwards International Journal of Communication 2(2008)
Lebow, R. (2000). Psychological dimensions of post-Cold War foreign policy. In S. Renshon (Ed.) The
Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing, and the psychology of leadership (pp. 235-245).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
MacGregor Burns, J., & Sorenson, G. (1999). Dead center: Clinton-Gore leadership and the perils of
moderation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
McCormick, J. M. (2000). Clinton and foreign policy: Some legacies for a new century. In S.E. Schier
(Ed.) The postmodern presidency: Bill Clinton’s legacy in U.S. politics (pp. 62-82). Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Merk, F. (1963). Manifest destiny and mission in American history: A reinterpretation. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. (2005, November 30). Retrieved November 28, 2006 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Neustadt, R. (1990). Presidential power: The politics of leadership. New York: Wiley.
Olson, K. M. (2004). Democratic enlargement’s value hierarchy and rhetorical forms: An analysis of
Clinton’s use of post-Cold War symbolic frame to justify military interventions. Presidential
Studies Quarterly, 34, 307-340.
Procter, D.E. (1987). The rescue mission: Assigning guilt to a chaotic scene. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 51, 245-255.
Rogin, M. (1987). Ronald Reagan, the movie and other episodes of political demonology. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ryan, D. (2000). U.S. foreign policy in world history. New York: Routledge.
Stephenson, A. (1995). Manifest destiny: American expansionism and the empire of right. New York: Hill
& Wang.
Stuckey, M.E. (1995). Competing foreign policy visions: Rhetorical hybrids after the Cold War. Western
Journal of Communication, 59, 214-227.
Stuckey, M. E. (2004). Defining Americans: The presidency and national identity. Lawrence, KS:
University of Kansas Press.
Tulis, J. (1998). The rhetorical presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
International Journal of Communication 2 (2008) Defining the Enemy in the Post-Cold War World 847
Windt, Jr., T.O. (1973). The presidency and speeches on international crises: Repeating the rhetorical
past. Speaker & Gavel, 11, 1-9.
Winkler, C.W. (2002). Manifest destiny on a global scale: The U.S. war on terrorism. Controversia, 1, 85-
105.
Zarefsky, D. (2004). Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34,
607-620.
Ok, Koko, o sa citim si discutam tot articolul de la adresa semnalata. Noua nu ni se pare ca ar fi fost anuntata sau sugerata intentia de a “tamiia”, cum zici tu campania lui Obama. Cinstit, in multe puncte a schimbat perceptii si definitii ale strategiilor de comunicare politica si ale stringerii de fonduri campania lui Obama. Crin Antonescu nu face la fel pentru stringerea de fonduri? In caz ca s-a speriat proponentul de analiza pe campania lui Obama (evit sa amintesc semnatura lui de mai sus), il anuntam ca publicam tot ce are o justificare in termeni de analiza academica. Iar tie iti multumim pt sugestia cu revista. Asteptam in continuare Obama analizat din est…
Ca tot veni vorba, tu, Koko, dincolo de faptul ca citesti, poti sa si scrii despre politica romaneasca sau internationala din perspectiva acestui proiect antimanipulare? Join us?
Revolutia Obama
Spectru general : Schimbarea
De ce a castigat Obama ?
Pentru ca a avut :
• Mesajul care trebuia
“I`m asking you to believe”, not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I`m asking you to believe in yours !
“Yes We Can !”
“Hope”
Pentru ca a fost :
• Candidatul Potrivit cu istoria potrivita
Absolvent al Harvardului, Candidat de Culoare, Tehnica Omului simplu – nu vine dintr-o familie instarita, cunoscuta in America, este un om simplu, care a fost crescut doar de mama sa.
Este : anti-razboi, antei-globalizare.
Pentru ca a venit la :
• Timpul Potrivit
Candideaza pe fondul crizei economice, criza care se datoreaza intr-o oarecare masura si proastei guvernari a Republicanilor, timp de 8 ani.
Pentru ca a intalnit :
• Oponentul Potrivit
McKain, un republican tipic, bun pe probleme de politica externa, in conditiile in care americanii erau ahtiati dupa 8 ani de razboi si politica externa. Imobil, batran, mai putin charismatic.
Pentru ca a folosit :
• Tehnologia Potrivita.
• A folosit noi strategii de NEW-Media, posibile in spatial American.
Implicarea pe internet,
Mituri folosite :
CONSPIRATIA INLOCUITA CU IDEEA DE PACIFISM – EROU SAlVATOR – UNITATE – VARSTA DE AUR
(conspiratia este inlocuita de clivajul PACIFICATOR/RAZBOINIC). Obama se potenteaza ca un pacificator ce va aduce stabilitate in SUA si restul planetei (VARSTA DE AUR) incheind conflictele din IRAQ, AFGANISTAN, purtand un dialog deschis cu IRAN, CHINA, RUSIA etc. Cere unitate din partea poporului, intotdeauna se foloseste de persoana a doua plural “NOI”. Niciodata nu se refera la el singur, ca ar putea sa faca ceva.
Strategii :
• A facut apel la spiritual communitarian al americanilor, incercand sa-I implice in mod direct in propria campanie si propriile proiecte. Head-ul site-ului barackobama.com a fost You Own This Campaign.
• A primit donatii de 9 milioane de dolari de la sustinatorii lui, oameni normali.
• Site-urile lui de campanie s-au bazat pe o alta strategie (NOUA), transformand informatia in posibilitatea de a intreprinde activitati – comunitati on-line de actiune in lumea reala. A creat platforme de discutie in care indivizii cu o anumita problema puteau comunica, oamenii lui Obama oferind voluntar expertiza tehnica.
Mr. I, credem ca ai dreptate, e foarte greu de gsit la Obama CONSPIRATIA. Smecheria lui sta in faptul ca incearca permanent sa redefineasca mitul CONSPIRATIEI intr-o perspectiva de reconciliere posibila, daca respectivul Conspirator renunta la violenta.
Implicitul mesajului justifica si nevoia de interventie a SUA – Inamicul violent ameninta ceva, nu e prea limpede ce, Poporul american, democratia in Afganistan, in Irak etc. Uite ce ne-a iesit noua.
Nu stim o astfel de redefinire a CONSPIRATIEI. E desteapta gaselnita. Daca respectivul Conspirator o si crede, evident. Dar, pentru Poporul american si pentru cei care sustin America, e clar ca are valoare de manipulare jocul PASNIC in jurul CONSPIRATIEI. Tie ti-a iesit ca e PACIFICATOR. Si noua.
The Full Inaugural Speech of President Barack Obama, http://indiedesign.typepad.com/inspire_political_discour/2009/01/full-transcript-of-president-obamas-inaugural-speech.html.
OBAMA – structuri manipulative romanesti, sau internationale?
UNITATEA in jurul Eroului Salvator. Discursul inaugural al lui Obama (20 ianuarie 2009) se construieste pe MITUL UNITATII, tehnica principala de manipulare fiind CONSTRUCTIA ALIATULUI – Poporul. INAMICUL apare, mai degraba, marginal in economia discursului Presedintelui american. Mai mult, NOUL INCEPUT lanseaza ideea de posibila reconciliere cu liderii politici – adversari “care cauta violenta” daca acestia vor intelege oferta PACIFICATOARE a Salvatorului – SUA/Obama.
DOI EROI SALVATORI. Discursul construieste doi Eroi Salvatori. Primul este Presedintele Statelor Unite. Al doilea este reprezentat de Statele Unite, la nivel mondial: “We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.”
I. AMENINTAREA CRIZEI, speranta colectiva si nevoia de UNITATE
Presedintele defineste situatia pentru Poporul sau. O frica sociala cu cauze evidente este invocata de Presedinte, pentru a genera entuziasmul participarii si al impliciarii in reconstructia Americii. “Emulatia”, cum ar zice candidatul Sorin Oprescu, a carei mito-logica se apropie cel mai mult de cea a lui Obama, cu accent pe constructia ALIATULUI – Poporul.
Mitul fundamental pe care construieste mesajul politic din discursul de inaugurare a mandatului este UNITATEA Poporului American, care trebuie sa se angajeze in actiunea colectiva pentru depasirea crizei si configurarea unui Nou Inceput. Evident, sub Eroul Salvator, Obama.
“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. (…) On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.” (…)
“For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.”
II. Manipulare prin CONSTRUCTIA ALIATULUI – Poporul, in orizontul sacralitatii religioase
“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. (…) We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”
III. INAMICUL este foarte vag construit si, mai degraba, intr-o atitudine de deschidere catre un “nou inceput”, al cooperarii, decit de condamnare. In campania actuala din romania toti candidatii vor sa fondeze un NOU INCEPUT, toate campaniile fiind construite pe conceptul strategic SCHIMBAREA in bine.
“To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
CONCLUZII
1. Nici un discurs politic prezidential nu poate evita mito-logica politicului, indiferent de tara sau epoca istorica – asteptam demonstratia contrariului.
2. Campaniile electorale aduc in discutie sacralitatea laica a INCEPUTURILOR – un nou inceput, sub un nou Erou salvator – asteptam demonstratia contrariului.
3. Campaniile electorale din Romania si de aiurea nu pot evita Eroul Salvator – asteptam demonstratia contrariului.
Pentru Romania el trebuie sa fie “puternic”. Pentru SUA, de exemplu, el trebuie sa fie puternic pentru ca e “negociator” – PACIFIST, nu pentru ca sare la gitul INAMICULUI POPORULUI.
Oare nu toti contracandidatii lui Basescu vor sa fie PACIFISTI? Motivele sunt diferite, evident, in comparatie cu motivele lui Obama.
4. Concluziile pot continua. Nu am vrut sa mergem dincolo de demonstratia analogiei dintre MESAJELE POLITICE din campaniile electorale Romania-SUA. Credem ca demonstratia a fost facuta, pastrind diferenta specifica, evident. CONSPIRATIA candidatilor americani este plasata in exteriorul SUA, mai ales dupa 11 septembrie 2001, si ia chipul TERORISTI – ALQUAEDA – BIN LADEN.
Nu cumva si Basescu operationalizeaza INAMICUL CONSPIRATOR in aceleasi etape?
Dar Voronin nu a parcurs aceleasi etape in apr. 2009, cind Romania era Conspiratorul?
Cam da. Deci grila mito-logica asemanatoare arata ce?
Mr I,
Arata bine, e altceva – o structura diferita de analiza, parca mai usor de citit decit a noastra, care, intr-adevar, e greoaie (a noastra), dar, asta e. A ta parca e mai curgatoare – o cascada de concluzii, banuiesc intemeiate pe alte argumente care nu e nevoie sa apara pt lectura. Vazut, placut. Trimite un numar de telefon pe mailul afisat pe home, te rugam.
Da, reiese ca mitologia politica si atacurile la persoana sunt mai putin folosite in alegerile din SUA? Ma uit pe discursul de investitura din 20 ianuarie al lui Obama sa vedem cum arata, parca si eu imi amintesc de tonul pozitiv, de autoconstructie.
Uite, diferentele sunt doar de matrice, formula de asezare si terminologie, in cea mai mare parte a diferentelor. De exe., acolo unde tu spui “Spectru general”, noi am spune “Concept strategic de campanie”. Asteptam nr. de telefon.
Mr I,
Poti sa aplici grila ta de lectura pe o campanie romaneasca? De preferat, a lu Geoana, antonescu sau/si oprescu – sunt mai putin reprezentati in ultimele zile.
nu e vina lor si nici a noastra: basescu e mai spectaculos. si creeaza trafic pe blog. cind afisezi cu numele basescu o analiza zbirniie contorul blogului. ceilalti nu au decit cel mult 10-12% din activismul generat pe blog de materialele despre traian basescu. dar trebuie sa ne ocupam si de tehnicile lor de manipulare.
asa sede bine la neutralitatea axiologica.
Salutare!
Imi place isi mie deea de proiect antimanipulare! Am vazut ca Mihai a venit cu o idee de traducere a titlurilor de pagina in rusa, eu vin cu propunerea in engleza:
1) The vicious circle of manipulation
2) Analysis limits
3) Project ANTIMANIPULATION
4) The political imaginary
5) Socio-political stereotypes
6) The symbolic of mediatic war – PRESIDENTIALS 2009
7) 10 rules of the MANIPULATION STRATEGY
The list of MANIPULATION TECHNIQUES
9) COMMENTATORS ON-DUTY
10) Proposals for article publication (max 500 words)
Multumim. Apoi, te salutam si noi. povesteste, te rog, de ce ai ales la nr. 9 “ON-DUTY”.
La 6 trebuie sa particularizam ca e vorba de Romania, ca vrea 5,87 miliarde de centateni nu stiu ca sunt alegeri in romania si nu poate fi gasit pe net la taguri din categoria lui.
Te salutam din nou. Join us?