if you are going to critique the article, it is usually good form to take on what it actually is about.
it is primarily a discourse analysis of schwartzenegger's speech.
the facts he musters are the shifts in language within the speech.
the general framework for interpretation are broader policy issues, but they are not central to the analysis.
and the logic of the article does not work the other way around.
the evaluation of the argument would come in whether you agree with how saletan characterizes the speech, not in whether you disagree with the frameworks that he brings to bear on those features.
what saletan does in the article i find interesting. his point seems to be that arnolds own political position does not permit him to actually endorse bush, and that the endorsement sections of the speech are fraught with ambivalence if you read it carefully--the speech therefore perform what i assume he takes to be the problem facing moderates at this convention.
that is the argument.
do you find that a problem?
if so why?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
Last edited by roachboy; 09-01-2004 at 09:49 AM..
|