Political Rhetoric: Laura’s well-thought out conclusion

During the preview of the website showed in class, the first video my eyes laid on was Laura’s crying face. So I’ve actually wanted to see this video for quite some time now and boy, was it great. Basically, it’s a video about a woman named Laura talking about her son who was murdered by an illegal immigrant, and ending with the conclusion of “Hillary Clinton’s border policy is going to allow people into the country just like the one that murdered my son.

.

This is strongly leaning on pathos; this video tries to evoke empathy in the listener or watcher through the story itself, the music, the filters, the slow zoom-ins and panning of the camera to emphasize the tragedy befallen upon the woman. One could also possibly argue that it can also haveĀ  a hint of ethos, implying that it is only right to vote for Donald Trump so that no incidents like these can happen again.

.

Not only does this campaign ad evoke sympathy with its story, but it also evokes fear in the audience. During the video, they even described the gruesome things the murderer did to her son and at the end, she declares that if one were to vote for Hillary- something similar might happen to them or their loved ones too. So in a way, it can also be kind of viewed as a “do this or else” kind of tactic to get votes.

.

I think the intended audience is for any family member, specifically mothers and fathers, considering they’re always the most concerned about each family member’s safety. Also, note the fact that Laura is a mother and the person who was murdered was her son.

In the video, an important thing I took note of is her use of the word “murdered.” Typically, when one is mourning most people tend to use euphemisms, words or phrases that can be used to replace harsher words, to avoid being too straightforward or blunt. However, in this video, she uses the word “murdered,” very concrete, sharp, and piercing. Using the word “murdered” gets to the audience more, and perhaps makes a bigger impression and plants greater and stronger fear and concern in their intended audience.

.

I think this is such an ineffective piece of rhetoric. Perhaps the intended audience might be concerned mothers and fathers, but I think more specifically, it would be narrow-minded mothers and fathers. Any sane person can argue that the murderer in this case just so happened to be an illegal immigrant. Not every person who crosses the border illegally is here to kill your son. They have their own needs, they want jobs, and most are willing to go through extremely low wages just to be able to live here discreetly. The first time I watched it, and I’m sorry Laura, but I scoffed. If that’s the conclusion you’ve ended up with, then Laura, I don’t think your son had to die for you to vote for Donald Trump.

Leave a Reply