Introduction

Presidential elections in the United States are among the most important decisions in the world. The leader of this country is one of the most influential people in the world. The incredible thing is that the people of this country have the ultimate decision on who wins the election. Whether the nominees hold conservative or progressive ideals, represent conservative or progressive ideals, the citizens have the ultimate choice of whether or not to elect a candidate. How do we decide? Typically that’s based on how well we know our candidates. That depends on how well they publicize themselves, which also depends on how well funded they are. That means that it is almost impossible for a modest, blue-collar worker to earn a fair shot at getting elected president. Seeing as how the majority of America is blue-collar, 90 million strong, these are the people who should be running for our election. Nicholas Carnes does a fantastic job of describing this discrepancy in our political system in his article, “Which Millionaire are You Voting For?” His use of rhetoric is convincing and emotionally moving to much of the American population.

Definitions paragraph

Throughout this paper, when “blue-collar” worker is referenced, it pertains to manual industrial work or workers. When “white-collar” worker is referenced, it pertains to salaried professional or clerical work or workers. Our presidential office is and has been occupied by high-end, white-collar individuals who have come from wealth. There hasn’t been a blue-collar presidential candidate in the past couple of decades. 

Analysis

Carnes does a fantastic job in this article portraying the economic imbalance within the representative portion of our government. He uses ethos, logos and pathos to incite the audience and enlighten them to a potentially threatening issue. Throughout his article, he uses many phrases that make it seem as though the citizens have lost power. Phrases such as, “By Election Day, that choice has usually been made for us” and “Even in our great democracy, we rarely have the option to put someone if office who isn’t part of the elite.” These selective phrases give the impression that the imbalance of money in society has created an imbalance of power in governing the nation. This imbalance shifts away from blue-collar, hard-working individuals who comprise the majority of the American work force. He follows this by empowering blue-collar individuals by referencing his research. When he says that there are so many “more blue-collar Americans with the qualities we might want in our candidates”, he tries to give these people, who have a minority in power, a feeling of empowerment, possibly to invoke them to become more involved in the political system. By constantly stating facts on how many more working-class Americans there are than millionaires, not only does he provoke his ethos appeal but he also tries to make working-class Americans that they have a civil duty to the country to become more involved in politics. The sheer numbers of working-class Americans is overwhelming compared to that of millionaire businessmen or lawyers, which is why this population should be the ones in power and making the decisions. He continues on this idea by stating that while millionaires are in power, they bring different biased views and perspectives to the political office. On the other hand, blue-collar workers such as Edward Beard (as previously quotes) carry with them values that were instilled through their experiences in the working-class. He again states the problems with having white-collar individuals in political office or positions of leadership and how it affects economic policy, “favoring the white-collar professionals at the expense of the working class.” In his next point, he highlights Mr. Beard, a hard-working ironworker for 20 years who eventually went to law school, to show hard-working citizens that it is possible to create change and voice opinions for others in their same situation. By also adding the point of “the matter with Kansas” (previously mentioned), he again tries to incite these workers to stand up for themselves and prove them wrong. In yet another emotional inciting appeal, he states “If we want government for the people, we’ve got to start working toward government by the people.” Referencing the values the constitution was built on gives the ultimate emotional appeal. These core values are the key to the success of America. The minute society begins to stray from these values is when we begin to crumble. Everyone knows this, and Carnes knows that everyone knows this. He uses this line to motivate this hard-working, blue-collar class of citizens. And to motivate this group even further, he finishes his article with the line “If the boys’ club isn’t invincible, the Millionaire Party probably isn’t, either. They just take a little hard work.”

Outline

Presidential elections in the United States are among the most important decisions in the world. The leader of this country is one of the most influential people in the world. The incredible thing is that the people of this country have the ultimate decision on who wins the election. Whether the nominees hold conservative or progressive ideals, represent conservative or progressive ideals, the citizens have the ultimate choice of whether or not to appoint someone president or not. How do we decide? Typically that’s based on how well we know our candidates. That depends on how well they publicize themselves, which also depends on how well funded they are. That means that it is almost impossible for a modest, blue-collar worker to earn a fair shot at getting elected president. Seeing as how the majority of America is blue-collar, 98% citizens, these are the people who should be running for our election. Nicholas Carnes does a fantastic job of describing this discrepancy in our political system in his article, “Which Millionaire are You Voting For?” His use of rhetoric is convincing and emotionally moving to much of the American population.

Writing Project #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/which-millionaire-are-you-voting-for.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion

This article embodied much of what I have been thinking about the election for the past couple of months. The money candidates spend on political campaigning is excessively ridiculous. Not only the expenses, but the amount of people who are in office around the country and are white-collar workers is astounding. With the majority of the nation's workers coming from blue-collar families raised on humble upbringings, the leaders of this country should not be the richer, white-collar workers. Our goal as a country should be to try to change this pattern and fix this dilemma. (even though this sounds like opinion, it's more of a summary. I just happen to agree with the author.)

Who won the first debate?

In my opinion, Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate. From the beginning of the debate Romney was focused and seemed to be determined to prove to the public his legitimacy. Throughout the debate, Romney seemed cool and collective while also being capable and prepared to argue or rebuttal any topic thrown at him. To me, Obama seemed defensive, especially when he continuously argued the 5 trillion dollar tax increase even though Romney refuted it every time Obama mentioned it. That also gave the impression of immaturity; instead of moving on and debating something else, he hounded that topic, as if holding on to one of the advantages he had over Romney (true or not). I also felt like Romney handled most of the topics that the curater presented much better than Obama did, both with answering and debating with his opponent. I also felt like Obama calling Romney "Governor" also showed signs of immaturity. Debate etiquette suggests that opponents call each other "he" or "my opponent", so when Obama reffered to him as "Governor" I believe it was a sign of disrespect and immaturity.

New Rules

Thomas Friedman recently posted an article regarding increasing educating standards and the difficulty in finding a steady, well paying job. He references Estonia's education system who is teaching first graders computer programming, followed by a poll in the U.K. asking if they should teach their children as well. Building off of this he states that in this world's ever changing technology industry, "working hard and playing by the rules" isn't enough to be successful or even to get by. In order to succeed and prosper in this world, we need to regularly reinvent ourselves and obtain at least post-secondary education while also continuing to learn with the changing times. To further prove his point, he quotes futurist Alvin Toffler in saying "illiteracy will not be defined by those who cannot read and write, but by those who cannot learn and relearn." He shows his amazement with the changing world when he depicts an average reporters daily routine, constantly working harder and smarter and developing new skills faster. He hits home for most Americans when he states unemployment facts associated with years of education.