Revisiting the Inquiry Project.

When people consider my topic, the first thing that comes to their minds is probably a feeling of disgust. I don't think most people like the muddiness of political discourse. One of the biggest issues regarding it is probably corruption, or corruptability. How much of political discourse is just 'fluff', or deceitful. What techniques might one master to acheive these kinds of dark rhetoric? How and why has it come to be what we know it as?
I think these questions would differ from the scholarly discourse community. Most scholars would probably agree the political language, at its core, is in fact an art form. It's not all lies and cover-ups, and even still, it takes knowledge to master. I think it is universally accepted that political discourse is a form of rhetoric. It is a dirty discourse because once mastered, it used to woo and sway the masses for good and bad reasons, even if contradicting the principles which supported it. I think most people would say political discourse, or rhetoric, is not taught thoroughly enough even through the college level. Unless you're majoring in English, Composition, or communication, most people will never really know what it actually is.

Most of the people that produce text about my topic are politicians; be they theorists, professors, or acting party members. Objectively, I think the goal of political discourse is to persaude rather than inform. But on a much more subjective level I think writer's of political discourse are flexing their own muscles, so they themselves may be affected. Supporting such a notion may seem groundless, but when examining any political text, one is often left with the sense that it is deeply personal.