Lippmann Vs. Bernays (DING DING DING)

After reading both Lippmann and Bernays pieces I felt both were exhibiting rhetoric however both were on different spectrums. I felt that while Bernays tone was a lot more persuasive, Lippmann's approach to get people to vote was a bit more coercive.

Bernay discussed his views of how there needs to be some kind of unity in order to progress as a society. All too often I feel like consumerism is this whole manipulating scheme to get more money and give power to certain people so they can control us. HOWEVER... I all too often forget that there does need to be some sort of set rules to conduct life in a civil way. I enjoyed Bernay's piece because when I think about rhetoric I always come back to the question, we'll if we all think in different directions, how does stuff get accomplished? Bernay explained the need to have a rhetoric approach to get things accomplished. We need to indulge into the many mind sets we have to agree on a common opinion and from there we collectively create common morals and values to live by. For example we all think killing is wrong. Now in a world where no rhetoric was used and no common opinion was formed, some people could say killing was acceptable in their mind. Rhetoric can be used for good, like finding ways to convince people to donate to charities, however rhetoric, I feel, can be used for bad as well. Example, Hitler had to of been a rhetorician in order to get all those people to believe Jews were evil. Never the less, I felt Bernay gave much insight and persuaded his audience to understand the need to rhetoric in life. Rhetoric is how we develop our values and morals.

Now for Mr. Lippmann over there. I understood that he was trying to convey a need to vote. However I felt he was more coercive than persuasive. I also understand that the need to vote is real if we don't want to be taken over by a dictator. I really do believe voting is so important, however Lippmann's tone turned me off because he was trying to use scare-tactics as oppose to persuading us to believe there is a need to vote. When Lippmann stated that is better vote and be partially educated than to not vote at all, I didn't agree. I don't like that. If a juror only attend 2 out of the 5 trial days, and the defendant is facing death sentence, I wouldn't want that juror submitting his opinion. I don't know. I just felt like when I read Lippmann's article it was funny, he'd be like " oh there's a general disinterest in politics" and just as I would read that I would skip like 4 sentences. Its funny, maybe if Lippmann's article was more interesting and persuasive I would of been persuaded to read and therefore more persuaded to go get people to vote.

Each author had there own opinion and despite the way they did, a message was conveyed. Even though I'm not a fan of coercive attitudes, it still worked, I got the message Lippmann was trying to say. I enjoyed Bernays piece because not only did it answer my ultimate question, I felt like his tone was more personable and persuaded me more to listen to what he had to say.