In Chomsky's Requiem For the American Dream he claims that the masters of mankind are actively trying to dismantle any solidarity among Americans. He goes as far as to title his fifth principle "Attack Solidarity." This adds to Chomsky's overarching argument that the American Dream is dead because it explains how the masters are trying to dismantle programs that allow the public a chance to better their situation in life.
Chomsky builds his argument by using Social Security as an example. He explains how Social Security works to benefit the public, and the "crisis" that everybody focuses on with Social Security is simply a way for the masters to destroy the program. He cites the Social Security Act of 1935 to strengthen his argument and allow the reader to look at what the Social Security Act is truly about, not just trust his opinion. Once Social Security is defunded, the system won't work and privatized companies can swoop in and profit. It all circles back to the vile maxim; people want what is best for them, not the public.
Next, Chomsky goes in depth on the destruction of public education. He compares public education in the '50s and '60s with public education today in order to highlight a startling observation: "In the 1950s, it was a much poorer society than it is today but, nevertheless, it could easily handle essentially free mass higher education,"(68). Chomsky relates to his audience by using personal experience of himself achieving higher education, at an Ivy League school, for virtually no cost. This personal account makes a huge impact when he compares it to today's problems with student debt. It appeals to both ethos and pathos by making the reader trust Chomsky due to his concern for students, and making the students angry towards a system that is supposed to help them learn and achieve their dreams.
Lastly, Chomsky evaluates the issue of joblessness in America. He breaks down how the masters want us to focus on our country's deficit, when joblessness is what matters to the public. If we were to put our workforce and resources to use, the public and the economy would be better off. Instead, the masters want to focus on themselves, not the betterment of the country, and they want Americans to sit back and watch. It's working, and our school systems and public programs are being destroyed. This evaluation appeals to logos in the way the Chomsky explains and clearly breaks down a complex and hidden plan that the masters have in place.
He calls out to his audience in the end of this chapter to realize that the outrageous price of higher education in American is a choice made by the masters. It is preventing people from reaching their dreams, thus adding to the argument that the American Dream is altogether dead. He evokes feelings of betrayal and frustration so that his audience will want to be active and change the course of this vicious cycle.
I also discussed the principle of solidarity in my blog and I think that we pretty much express the same view points. Chomsky makes the "masters of mankind" seem inhumane for wanting to destroy systems like Social Security and public education, regardless if it's what offers middle and lower class citizens a better shot at life. I agree that Chomsky makes the audience trust him because he includes personal examples about his education, which automatically increases his ethos and creates an emotional response from the audience.
ReplyDeleteI really like your opening sentence and I also agree with the claim you chose! Chomsky is telling his readers that our founding fathers have instilled into the American rich culture to destroy any form of solidarity. He uses public policy programs such as Social Security and public education to support his claims. He also makes it seem as if the rich have no human emotion since, according to his definition, that is what solidarity is. I like how you tied the vile maxim back into this claim because it is so true. The rich and powerful are only looking to what can benefit themselves and not other people as a whole. This goes back to Chomsky’s main argument about how America lacks class mobility or there’s no true mobility because the rich only get richer especially with a mindset concerning dismantling solidarity.
ReplyDeleteThe three arguments that you chose reflects what I think to be is the control of power with the concentration of wealth closely in association. Chomsky really drives the point of the protection of the opulent minority with these principles. The emotion he intends for the audience to evoke is achieved easily through his use of loaded words and such. The vile maxim ensures that the American dream, or social mobility described by Chomsky, would make it increasingly difficult to quote on quote "make it." The depiction you used of student loans and debt portrays the middle-class that is constantly being thwarted with the most unnecessary of problems. Among other complications comes the bringing up of ones career because all the money spent and invested in schooling has to be compensated. Joblessness is a factor leading to our nations demise. Unemployment rates are still on the rise despite our efforts. When ever the plan to make America great again comes to fruition, the future is uncertain.
ReplyDelete