Counter Friction

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a famous and well-regarded example of effective rhetoric. In this essay, Thoreau used all three corners of the rhetorical triangle to outline what he saw as the problems with the government of the time, and with government in general, due to their inherent lack of respect for the individual, instead preferring to maintain the status quo of the whole, even with the cost being widespread injustice and corruption, which Thoreau opined were the chief products manufactured thereby. Governments are by their nature, according to Thoreau, generally more harmful than helpful, although he did profess a respect for the concept of government, and wished for a better government that does more to respect the rights of individuals and liberty as a whole. Specifically, Thoreau spoke about the Mexican-American War, poll taxes, slavery, and other laws that he saw as unjust. In regards to these topics specifically and government in general, Thoreau attempted to persuade his audience, which was comprised of students in Concord, Massachusetts, to his point of view with skillful use of the rhetorical triangle, which is to say through the careful application of both logical and emotional arguments, combined with ethos in the form of his academic reputation.

Thoreau's Use of the Rhetorical Triangle in 'Civil Disobedience'

From an in-class writing exercise on rhetoric from Honors Composition II:

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience seeks to outline the problems with our current mode of government and with government in general due to their inherent lack of respect for the individual, instead preferring to maintain the status quo of the whole, even at the expense of injustice and corruption, which Thoreau opines are the chief products manufactured thereby. Governments are, according to Thoreau, generally more harmful than helpful, although he does profess a respect for the concept of government, and wishes for a better government that does more to respect the rights of individuals and liberty as a whole.

American Federal Government Presentation #2: Instant Runoff Voting

Instant Runoff Voting: A Solution to Hyperpluralism

Hyperpluralism is a problem. The idea of our pluralistic system is one of distributed power. Interest groups influence the government, and the government makes policy. This works best when there are many special interests groups promoting candidates from which we choose representatives, who then balance one another within our government. In the US, we have many, many political parties, but rarely do we notice anyone not from the two largest parties. This has led to a state of hyperpluralism, wherein our two main parties have grown so strong that they've suppressed both the power of the government and the will of the people. We now have two angry mobs playing Tug of War with our civil rights, our economy, and our lives. We should reform our Presidential electoral system in order to provide a robust selection of candidates, which would in turn, reintroduce balance to our system of governance.

Government Presentation #1: An Analysis of The Judiciary Branch, as Proposed in the Federalist #78-84

My notes and handout from my first presentation for my American Federal Government class.

Presentation Notes:

I'd like to begin with a very famous quote. It that appears nowhere within the Federalist, but is nevertheless present throughout.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This statement encapsulates the entire basis of our Union. We have rights. The government exists to secure them. That's the point. Out of these branches, the Judiciary does the most to secure and promote those rights, because they provide 'equal justice under the law' to every citizen. (Except maybe Dred Scott.)