Most likely, those of you who are taking some type of economics course or have read a national newspaper lately have heard something about the government shutdown that began this Tuesday, October 1st. A government shutdown involves temporarily stopping the funding and workings of all services deemed to be unnecessary, or “non-excepted”, until Congress passes a bill to help re-establish how to fund the government (Plumer).
Beginning Tuesday, September 24th, and going into Wednesday, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas performed a 21 plus – hour filibuster-type appeal in the effort of gaining support against a proposed government spending bill that would continue funding for ObamaCare.
I would like to state that I am not giving my opinion on these proceedings and about any political actions connected to the government shutdown or ObamaCare, I am merely analyzing the rhetorical devices Cruz used in his marathon speech.
Saenz, Arlette. “Ted Cruz’s Obamacare All-Nighter Ends After 21 Hours.” ABCNews.com. 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.
To begin, Cruz opened his speech stating the cause of his action: to rise up against ObamaCare for people across the U.S. who are suffering from the effects of the health care program. Here and throughout his whole speech, Cruz uses the appeal of ethos. He is a man of position within the government, prompting respect from many of his listeners. He also portrays the impression that he truly cares about the American public, further prompting them and other officials to hear him out because he comes across as a man with a good character who means well. He further connects with the American people as he reads off tweets from people in support of his effort, having utilized the hashtag #MakeDCListen.
He then appeals to pathos, similarly, by stating that by performing his long speech, he hopes to portray the voice and reasoning of the American public who have been affected negatively by ObamaCare and persuade Congress against refunding the health care initiative. The audience, the American public especially, are able to connect with Cruz, as they see how determined and passionate he is on defending them even though he does not know them personally. As he states in the beginning of his speech, he intended to speak against the bill for as long as he could stand, very openly showing his passion and sacrifice he is willing to give to his effort.
Cruz also uses logos within his speech, using examples to support his reasoning that ObamaCare is harming people and businesses around the country. One example he uses is the restaurant White Castle. He states statistics of White Castle’s decreasing rate of opening new locations each year because of ObamaCare. Facts like these help give evidence to support his argument and get his listeners to consider his, businesses’, and the general public’s view of the health care program.
All in all, Cruz’s speech, although not a true filibuster as it did not delay the proceedings of the bill, was a symbolic speech that was encompassed by civic engagement. Cruz felt a civic responsibility to voice his, and many Americans’, opinions on the bill. He saw an issue that he felt needed to be addressed and brought it to more people’s attention in order to try to better his country. I believe he was successful at this. By performing one of the longest speeches on the Senate floor, he received attention for his cause not only from fellow Senators, but also from news reporters and fellow Americans, getting the chance to get his argument out into the world. It worked. His speech, full of everything from examples for fighting for his cause to reading bedtime stories to his daughters, worked its way to one of the top news stories on the web.
I consider Cruz’s filibuster-type speech a good example of civic engagement. You can follow the link at the bottom of this post to see videos of his speech (pieces of course). Even though his speech did not delay the proceedings of the bill, do you think his filibuster-type speech directly impacted the government shutdown?
Washington Post: “The Best of Ted Cruz’s Marathon Speech”
Works Cited:
Plumer, Brad. “Everything You Need to Know About How a Government Shutdown Works.” The Washington Post. 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.
I found Senator Cruz’s speech very interesting. I actually believe that he achieved his goal. While everyone was scrambling before the government shutdown to get all sorts of back door deals done, Senator Cruz did the one thing that not many other politicians did, which was talk to the American people. I think that many people sympathized with Senator Cruz, not necessarily because of the points he was making, but because he was really the only one letting the American people know what was going on. Although the part about White Castle may not seem important to some people, it is important to the owners and employees of that food chain. The effects of Obamacare will certainly be felt by businesses because of the huge amount of extra money and taxes that they will have to face and pay. It’s been proven that businesses have already had to lay off employees because of Obamacare. People need to remember that a business is all about making money, and that sometimes they have to layoff employees to save money. It’s a shame, but that’s what the business world is. other than that, I believe that Senator Cruz made some very good points and appealed to a lot of people.
Filibusters are so interesting to watch (although perhaps less so to be a part of the outcome), because they really prove the point that an effective speech has to have a time limit. Even considering the kairos of the situation was right, if you must keep talking for 21+ hours; inevitably, your remarks will become less and less on topic in an attempt to continue the flow of conversation. This makes a filibuster difficult to rhetorically analyze, as it’s hard to comment on organization with such a broad time frame.
I find it fascinating that Cruz argues so many people have been negatively affected by the Affordable Health Care Act when it has yet to go into effect in a major way. His evidence, to put it mildly, is lacking. A better argument might be the fact is that the AHCA will cause costs of business owners to rise for needing to insure their employees. But despite the facts, if he cannot establish ethos– that these are unnecessary burdens rather than sacrifices for a better future– his argument will fail. And frankly, I really, really, don’t care if a few White castle burger joints close down if it drastically increases the number of insured in America.
I think that it is important to note that while the government is shut down, this in no way had any effective on the continuation of Obama Care. The money that finances this insurance comes from a different pot of money and the government shutdown hasn’t stopped it from operating. Therefore, I am not entirely sure that his speech was effective. If I understand correctly, as a Republican he wants to stop Obama Care, however, shutting down the government doesn’t do this. Nevertheless, I think that the rhetorical strategies that you pointed out are valid and I think that his speech is a type of civic engagement. It is hard to argue that it isn’t when it is of a political nature. I am just a little unsure of whether his speech was effective in stopping Obama Care.