“When (an advocate) is not thoroughly acquainted with the real strength and weakness of his cause, he knows not where to choose the most impressive argument. When the mark is shrouded in obscurity, the only substitute for accuracy in the aim is in the multitude of the shafts.”
― John Quincy Adams
Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
In our present era, when with the array of communications politics seem to go on forever and pundits never cease to express opinions as if there were facts, it is hard to ignore empty rhetoric. As a Cuban born, exiled in this country, and presently an American citizen, I felt a sense of pride when seeing Senator Marco Rubio announce his run for the presidency of our country.
It is obvious that he has a touching family history, is a good orator, and is able to present a clear message. As in the other two Republican and one Democrat declared candidates, I did not care much about the substance, waiting for the debates and a clear understanding on their approach to the many issues at hand before I decide on whom to support. Regardless, when I read praise on a column written by Fabiola Santiago explaining Rubio’s positions on issues and why we should oppose him, I thought it might be a source of information. I should have known better! Ms. Santiago is a well known partisan Democrat, and, as such equal to partisan Republicans, has the tendency to assume that she represents everyone that shares her sex, background, and values.
When describing empty rhetoric, she gets very high grades. To wit “a political path that puts him at odds with the progressiveness of contemporary South Florida”, “is an ultra conservative Republican who rose to power by embracing tea part right wing ideology with evangelic eagerness”. This propaganda goes on ad nauseam. Of course it was a must for her to use her writing to criticize, George Bush, Cheney and Ted Cruz. When she tries to come close to issues she cannot help to use words against the candidate as “sexist”, “troglodyte”, “old and regressive ideas”, “bad for the environment, bad for women, bad for gays, and offers nothing to African Americans and Latinos”. All this without any facts, quotes, references, or any semblance of proof to back her statements. The issues she seems to use in her constant attacks were abortion, climate change, and immigration. None of these are priorities to most voters. Foreign policy and the economy were only mentioned in passing and mostly in defense of Obama. The question of conception and/or when life begins is very debatable, as is the case of the usual changes in climate being caused by humans, and in both scientists differ in their assessment. Women are not all, as she wants to believe, united in the subject of life and abortion, as legal immigrants also are not in the matter of illegal immigration. These subjects, plus racism, sexual discrimination, women rights, income inequality, opportunity for all, education, the economy, and foreign policy should be debated and all the candidates’ positions made clear so the voters can make an informed decision. Fabiola Santiago’s column with her empty rhetoric has not helped.
Fernando J Milanes MD
