Chomsky uses exemplification by noting the the Fourteenth Amendment and historical Supreme Court cases such as Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. The fourteenth amendment defines national citizenship and protects the basic rights of citizens from states. Chomsky compares undocumented aliens and General Elections Company in order to show how the law provides protection for companies but not individuals who even though are not citizens, work hard and handle rigorous jobs. He states, "Undocumented aliens who are living here and building your buildings, cleaning your lawns, and so on, they`re not persons, but General Election is a person, an immortal, super powerful person" (pg. 98). This just shows how brainwashed our country has become to money. We would rather help corporations, who are already thriving to thrive even more, than a person who is doing everything in their ability to survive. This example makes the readers feel guilty, disappointed and other emotions that influence them to side with Chomsky. He also mentions Citizens United vs. FEC, to portray the historical background on how corporations intertwined themselves with elections. This court case ruling allows corporations "to do it (buy elections) with virtually no constraint" (pg. 99). Chomsky also brings up Kennedy, a Supreme Court judge of the case, and his reasoning. He associates CBS`s freedom of speech with General Electric`s "freedom" of money to justify his vote. Chomsky backfires this claim by mentioning how CBS is a "public service" and is completely irrelevant to others companies money. The reasoning behind the ruling of this case makes readers, like me, question the relevance and purpose of this case. Was this for the better, or worse? Chomsky exemplifies important historical aspects that affect us on a daily basis, rights that citizens are entitled to have and rulings that determine our next president.
Chomsky also uses cause and effect to portray how the process of businesses and politics work. He mentions Thomas Ferguson`s "investment theory in politics" to help support his claim. By buying access from candidates, they also get access to legislatures, people who create laws, "privileged access means that your corporate lawyers go the staff of the legislature, the people who actually write the legislation." (pg. 101). By having all these connections, basically these laws are only beneficial for the common good of businesses, not all. Chomsky uses pathos by creating a negative connotation on his examples and logos by analyzing evidence and stating logical ideas. His evidence make this claim more compelling to the primary audience, the middle class, because they are more educated and knowledgeable of the historical context and the primary target of the "effects".
Chomsky is able to support his claim with the use of relatable and logical evidence. The fact that businesses "control" a big aspect of elections and politics not only affects the common man but also the American Dream.
You have a great title for this post, and it puts what Chomsky is saying into a catchy phrase. Businesses do stand together and feed off of one another (just like how General Electric benefitted from CBS's freedom of speech) which just makes them more powerful in America. It was shocking to me as well when Chomsky pointed out how businesses have rights that are protected like people, when immigrants don't even have those rights. It's so twisted and wrong. It makes me sad, but it also makes me wonder how long the people could possibly let this go on? I'd like to think that one day legislation and justice will truly be in favor of the people, and not everything in our country will be fueled by money and power.
ReplyDeleteI love the picture you chose and the title very much represents Chomsky's argument in principle number seven and also through the entire book. I evaluated the same the same evidence Chomsky is providing when he is talking about the power that big businesses hold. I personally found that is evidence was weak because it only benefits his argument. He doesn't present us with an opposing argument and prove to us that it is wrong therefore his claim is 100 percent right. Although I do agree that big businesses do hold way to much power in our country, we can't be on board with everything that Chomsky is stating. He uses pathos and logos just like you stated to appeal to his audience which is the lower and middle class. By tugging at their emotions and providing evidence that would make a reasonable amount of sense the the lower and middle class he is giving himself credibility and tricking us in a way to make it seem that everything he is saying is the only way to look at the problem he is presenting to us.
ReplyDeleteI was also shocked when Chomsky stated that corporations have personal rights and have somehow become a person under the law, whereas immigrants that are actually hardworking people don't even have those rights. Corporations are already powerful enough, and as it turns out, powerful enough to influence an election, yet they seek more power. It just seems really unfair to me how business rights are more protected than immigrant rights. Really shows how most people in power only care about money and not the rest of the population.
ReplyDelete