Hillary's Strong Rhetoric - Report Example

Topic Hillary’s Strong Rhetoric Strong points The strength of Hillary Clinton’s proposals lies in the well-built cohesive ideas on which they are based. Although Hillary’s proposals do not provide step by step details on some issues, the clarity with which she deals with the topics makes it clear that she is not trying to make false promises, and overshadows any misconception one might harbor about her goals in the White House. This enables her to build up a very strong and convincing rhetoric. In her paper, Hillary presents some important unbiased national and international policy proposals that would be put into action if she were to be elected as the next president of the United States. She conveys a clear message of re-strengthening America’s relationship with the international community in a bid to gain back America’s honor and trust among leaders and people around the world. Hillary is successful in reaching her audience because she uses a cause and effect strategy to explain how she plans to succeed where the current Bush Administration has failed, and by striking a balance between multiple points of view. Keeping all options open Clarity begins with defining the middle ground that needs to be taken when dealing with issues of diplomacy. Hillary Clinton makes a strong point under the Power and Principle section of her writing when she says: “There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.”(5) Although Hillary keeps both the options of force and diplomacy open, she makes clear her preference for multilateralism over unilateralism. This is an indication of her readiness to take the opinion of the international community into consideration and not act in a way that may be interpreted as serving only the goals of the United States. However, she also does not discard unilateralism entirely, but keeps it available as an unavoidable option in certain circumstances. The approach allows her to build character and credibility for having multiple views as opposed to favoring one type of foreign policy strategy which would make for a weak argument. Even more effective is the way she justifies using force in situations where the security of the United States is threatened or to avoid imminent tragedy. Although this is just one of many points made in the article, it is an example of the effective way that arguments are being presented. Her subsequent statement serves to reinforce the idea that Hillary Clinton does a fine job of presenting both sides of the argument to build strong rhetoric: “As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorist; they must be hunted down and captured or killed. Nor can diplomacy alone stop the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity in places such as Darfur.” (5) As before, she states that there is a time for diplomacy and a time for force, takes a convincing stance that she will not hesitate to use force to protect our country. The idea that we cannot negotiate with terrorists and that war-torn regions like Darfur require more than diplomatic efforts is a very realist point of view that helps build trust and character to illustrate the extent of her views. She differentiates between individual terrorists and other fundamentalist groups that might not be considered as terrorists by some people. By doing so, she demonstrates a very effective way of being distinctive with her words rather than speaking too descriptively Statements that Hillary had made at previous sections of the paper also begin to make more sense when viewed from the perspective that she adopts. “As president, I will seize the opportunity by reintroducing ourselves to the world. I will rebuild our power and ensure that the Unites States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.” (4) As we backtrack to this passage, things become clearer now that we know what her international diplomacy points of view are and her plans as president. There can be no negotiations with individual terrorists, and force must be used, when necessary, to protect the United States against any threats. Hillary refuses to base her international policy on fear. She would rather wrest the initiative from the terrorists and concentrate on building a world that the United States and the peace-loving international community wants. Her strategy is to respond to positive impulses rather than to fear. The world of terror to her a fearful and unknown world from which she wants to move away so that the United States can once again be the superpower that helps other countries rather than the war monger that it is viewed as today by a large majority of the people. Practical Standpoint Hillary is clear on what she wants when it comes to bigger issues such as Iraq. She is categorical about withdrawing United States troops from Iraq but prefers to provide a reasonable plan with a timeframe rather than a specific date that could become unfeasible or unattainable. “…as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring out troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.” (7) It is significantly more effective for her to identify the people she will work with to begin the process of withdrawing troops as a way to persuade her audience of her relevance as the future president of the United States. It illustrates that she is a team player, as opposed to a autocrat who acts according to her or his own sweet will. She avoids making any assumptions on when the troops could be home but focuses on the process of drawing up a plan which would be put into force within the first 60 days of her being elected. She makes it evident that she wants to stabilize Iraq through diplomatic means rather than use force, but at the point of writing the paper, she judiciously abstains from making a commitment on which of the strategies would work best. More importantly, she does not dwell on what could have been done but rather on what needs to be done in order to help end the war and bring peace of mind to both sides. “While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis…” (7) This implies that Hillary is not only intent on ending the war, but also on helping the people of Iraq who have gone through a lot of pain and sufferings for a long time now. This reveals the human side to her nature on a personal level. It portrays her as a woman who cares for the international community rather than just as another politician. Her plans for Iraq incorporate multiple issues with multiple solutions which strike a balance between extremes and reaches out to a diverse United States. Her plans are not limited to the international community by any means, but rather focus on the methods to re-strengthen the United States in order to strive for success as a dominant country in the twenty-first century. In other words, she is a strong believer in the idea that domestic politics and international politics go hand in hand just like diplomacy and force complement each other. “We must develop a comprehensive strategy focusing on education, intelligence, and law enforcement to counter not only the terrorists themselves but also the larger force fueling support for their extremism.” (9) The way to take on these foreign threats begins with the strength of our security at home and our infrastructure as a whole. A broader perspective She builds on her credibility when she mentions, on more than one occasion, the larger forces of extremism which is behind the terrorism we see today. By mentioning education, intelligence, and law enforcement she is grasping a wider audience who are individually more closed minded on limited issues. At the same time, she is successful in addressing a diverse range of issues which are important to different citizens of the United States. Although the statement talks about terrorism and the extremism behind it, the underlying point focuses on rebuilding a strong domestic force and security measures so that we may be better prepared for future threats or attacks. “We must also keep our guard up at home. As a senator from New York, I have long advocated full investment in our first responders and in protecting our critical infrastructure. I have pushed for new strategies and new technologies, such as a new federal interoperable communications and safety system.” (10) This statement provides a clear perspective on her domestic plans of rebuilding and re-strengthening internal security measures. She becomes more persuasive when she states that this is not something new for her but rather an issue that she has been pushing for as a senator. It shows perseverance and loyalty, and makes her reader appreciate the experience that she has in the particular area. It is very important to note that this line of persuasion linked with her personal experience and work is adopted several times throughout her writing. Hillary uses her experience as senator to emphasize her stance on these issues as a consistent factor in her career. An element of ambivalence Hillary Clinton gives the impression that as the President of America she would be ready to adopt all available options to protect the interests of the United States. The con side of the argument lies in the fact that this can also be seen as ambivalence on her part, that she is not willing to cut away completely from the strategies of the Bush administration. The problem lies in the fact that in international politics it is very difficult to decide whether a situation actually warrants extreme measures or not. By emphasizing that she is willing to use force, she brings up the question of how to decide when to use such force. A deeper analysis of her proposals could also reveal that she is trying to walk the middle line while still toeing the line of the Bush administration. That would in turn imply that Hillary would not be a change in its real change. Conclusion The style of persuasive writing illustrated by Hillary Clinton is made effective by the clarity she demonstrates and the balance she strikes between multiple points of views on different issues. We already know that she prefers multilateral agendas over unilateral approaches but understand that forces is sometimes necessary and is ready to use it at appropriate times. Her credibility comes from her experience and her knowledge and understanding of the current events of the world from many perspectives. She understands that we are fighting a war that must be dealt with effectively, but at the same time does not forget that the Iraqi people are human beings too who are suffering the collateral damages of warfare. Her scholarly knowledge of fundamental extremism and the way it needs to be fought builds trust, confidence and credibility. “As we seek to promote the rule of law in other nations, we must respect it ourselves.” (10) This statement implies that she understands that being a humble nation is also being a responsible nation. Regardless of the national and international issues that the United States may be facing, it will be a folly to enforce any law that we ourselves choose not to or cannot follow. Her comprehension of the international environment makes her writing easier to be persuaded by. Notwithstanding the element of ambivalence in her approach, her statements are inherently impartial to any one kind of person or group. This differentiates her greatly from the current Bush Administration. Her proposals and her stance on issues are justified through strong rhetoric. Read More