became further entrenched during the Reagan Revolution, and has bloomed into the Tea rhetoric of politics today (Holtzman 2013). The fear of big government discourse presents itself in political language in three characteristic ways—each on display in the rhetorical reaction to build Obama’s “you didn’t remark: (1) Fear-mongering claims that conflates an active federal government with a loss that” of individual liberty; (2) the portrayal of those who favor a more active federal government as socialists (or communists); (3, and the depiction of both active government and those who advocate for it as fundamentally (Holtzman 2013). By drawing on these “un-American” rhetorical devices, thereby grounding their narrative in this fear of big government discourse, opponents were able to make his remark meaningful—in fact, threatening—to those for Obama’s whom this conception of active government as the enemy of individual freedom rings true. These characteristic manifestations of the discourse are clear in the oppositional narrative crafted to meaningfully define remark. In an interview with CNBC on July 23, ten days Obama’s after remark, Romney said of the views (as Romney portrayed them): Obama’s president’s This is an ideology which says hey, all the same here, [government] ought we’re to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past (2012b). To ensure that the implications of his point were clear, Romney summed up by a declaring: “It’s very strange and, in some respects, foreign to the American experience type of philosophy” (2012b).
became further entrenched during the Reagan Revolution, and has bloomed into the Tea rhetoric of politics today (Holtzman 2013). The fear of big government discourse presents itself in political language in three characteristic ways—each on display in the rhetorical reaction to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark: (1) Fear-mongering claims that conflates an active federal government with a loss of individual liberty; (2) the portrayal of those who favor a more active federal government as socialists (or communists); (3, and the depiction of both active government and those who advocate for it as fundamentally “un-American” (Holtzman 2013). By drawing on these rhetorical devices, thereby grounding their narrative in this fear of big government discourse, Obama’s opponents were able to make his remark meaningful—in fact, threatening—to those for whom this conception of active government as the enemy of individual freedom rings true. These characteristic manifestations of the discourse are clear in the oppositional narrative crafted to meaningfully define Obama’s remark. In an interview with CNBC on July 23, ten days after Obama’s remark, Romney said of the president’s views (as Romney portrayed them): This is an ideology which says hey, we’re all the same here, [government] ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past (2012b). To ensure that the implications of his point were clear, Romney summed up by declaring: “It’s a very strange and, in some respects, foreign to the American experience type of philosophy” (2012b).
holtzman.docx