More's piece, Village Politics, suggests a very interesting lens through which to interpret the revolutionary attitudes of political liberals and French radicals. Addressing primarily the French Revolution, protagonist Jack Anvil laments the self-interest, contemptuousness, and "aversion to justice" that characterizes the movement. Ultimately, the maligned revolution stems, as per Jack, of a departure from Christian morality. Instead, the Holy Bible has found itself replaced with the naive, self-indulgent Rights of Man.
This [well-evidenced] accusation proves to be a very effective rhetorical strategy. By exploiting the historic piety of the British cultural tradition, More is able to demonstrate the danger of her detractors within the contained, controlled arena of her own dialogue.
I think that some politicians today are employing a similar strategy of appealing to Christian morality. Mitt Romney has been attacked by evangelicals for being Mormon and Obama was accused of secretly being Muslim. It seems this strategy hasn't died out.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this strategy is being employed in many politicians' platforms today; however, I have been thinking about whether or not their use can be considered positive or negative. While More does present her side of the argument, I wonder if she was seeking to inform or if she wanted to completely tear apart the argument of her opponents. I think that this idea of using the conversational strategy is something interesting to consider, but the audience also needs to consider the motives of the author and if there are any personal incentives besides informing the public.
ReplyDelete