 |
| from Basic Principles of Speech 3rd ed, p 74 Lew Sarett,W.F. Foster, Alma Sarett (1958) |
The Republican Party has consistently been strong on defense and for eternally mustering an overflowing arsenal. As a Democrat I have always wondered what this seems to imply about us Democrats. Does it suggest that we want a weak and inadequate military certain to fail in conflict and needlessly wreaking havoc upon the lives of our troops--a deplorably odious rendition of treason.
I think it is fair to say that both parties are concerned with relationship in human affairs. But Republicans have a pronounced suspicion that relationship can connote weakness and vulnerability in affairs both domestic and foreign. It as if to say to all wishing to establish closer ties with the US Government, don’t expect us to be romantically silly…and most of all, NEVER expect us to play the role of sugardaddy. Such a role would inevitably end up demeaning us all.
You may demur that military weapons have no direct relation to a broader perceptual telegraphing of toughness. I hold this to be flatly untrue as is indicated by the conservative’s insistence on an individual’s right to bear firearms. When a father seeks to signify to his unruly son that he is no pushover, a stash of weapons in the back corner can do wonders to clarify perception and straighten up attitude.
Print Page
