Pauline Hansons speech is based on identifying the ways in which Pauline Hanson used rhetorical strategies in her speech. The main purpose of this e

Pauline Hansons speech is based on identifying the ways in which Pauline Hanson used rhetorical strategies in her speech. The main purpose of this extract is to look at how Pauline Hanson's rhetoric is acted out in her speech to the Australian Parliament in 1996 and it discusses matters concerning racism, economic difficulties, and immigration. The target audience of the speech is the Australian federal and state politicians, the Australian public, people from opposing points of view as a strategy to influence their opinions, and stakeholders who are specifically interested in the issues of racial equality, economic policy, immigration, and national identity. Through the utilization of rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, Pauline Hanson successfully persuades her audience to a position of thick populism which is based on the components of closeness to people, an anti-establishment narrative, and an exclusion strategy.

A key element of thick populist rhetoric is the creation of a strong connection with people by building trust and solidarity. Hanson utilises ethos and establishes credibility by purposely using her personal experiences and relating them to the similar struggles and concerns of ordinary Australians. Hanson draws on the familiar experiences shared by many Australians, focusing on what she has in common with ordinary people and working-class life, in line 3, it is stated, as a woman who has had her fair share of life's knocks. Through the familial experiences representation, she aims to narrow the distance between her and the audience by presenting herself not as a distant politician but as a person who has been through the same hardships and difficulties. Hanson states in lines 5-7, "My experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent". By drawing upon her personal experiences, Hanson effectively establishes herself as a relatable figure who shares the same everyday realities as her constituents.

The second key element of thick populist rhetoric is the appeal of anti-establishment sentiments which create a sense of solidarity among the populace against perceived privileged members of the society. As stated in line 18, Present governments are encouraging separatism. Hanson uses the persuasive technique of pathos as a communicative strategy to evoke emotions of frustration and discontent among her audience toward the government and establishment. As stated in lines 20-21, Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government. She aims to foster a shared sentiment of dissatisfaction, positioning herself as a voice for the marginalised. She pictures government policy that works to generate disagreement amongst non-Aboriginal Australians lines 44-48. Thus, Hanson seeks to fuel an outcry against the governments policies seen as discriminatory towards non-Aboriginal Australians, thereby, representing herself as a defender of the common man against the political status quo.

Exclusionist strategy, a core of thick populist rhetoric, seeks to position certain groups of people as foreign to a monolithic group. Hanson brings up the logical argument that ordinary Australians have been out of major political parties' discussions to establish justice and equality. Hanson employs the persuasive technique of logos, known as logical persuasion, to contend that ordinary Australians have been denied access to important discussions by the major political parties. This approach is effective and impactful for her followers because it relies on their ideas of justice and egalitarianism through which she is portrayed as a crusader against the elitism of the established parties. Hanson points out the main two parties for neglecting the worries of the everyday people with regards to immigration and multiculturalism so the idea of an exclusion strategy is reiterated as one of the plank of thick populism in lines 118-120. This indicates the targeted elimination of regular Australians from the discourse involving immigration and multiculturalism thus implying that these problems are not of much concern to the political elite, as stated in 104-105 lines, for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. Consequently, she promotes an exclusion strategy as an element of thick populism by portraying her supporters as the forgotten majority and painting the major parties as ignorant of the critical issues of common people.

To conclude, Pauline Hansons speech given in the Parliament of Australia in 1996 advocates for thick populism rhetoric through epiphany, emotion, and reason to fight for thick populism, creating a bond with the people, challenging the ruling party, and using the exclusion tactics she depicts the suffering of the oppressed Australians.

PLEASE READ: MAKE SURE THE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION IS ANSWERED THROUGHOUT THE ASSIGNMENT: To what extent do you agree Pauline Hanson is a skilful political speaker. She is able to use the techniques of traditional rhetoric (ethos, pathos and logos) to persuade her audience around to a position of thick populism (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007).

CRITERIA THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED:

The following points are considered when awarding a score.

Were all task requirements fulfilled?

Does the assignment answer the question(s)?

To what extent does the assignment demonstrate understanding of the analytical

tools/concepts?

Is there a clear link between discussion of (or commentary on) the text, and application of

the key tools/concepts? (Tip: try to avoid the kind of general commentary that anyone could

do, even if they had never taken this course!)

To what extent were the concepts/tools deployed to produce an insightful analysis of the

text?

To what extent are claims backed by evidence in, or reference to, the text? (Tip: good

discourse analysts regularly refer to the text (e.g., short quotes or line numbers), rather than

just talking about the text!)

Is the assignment presentable? Is it clearly expressed and in an appropriate academic

register?