In the midst of 2017, the drive for change in the United States has been rapid and there are no signs of it changing anytime soon. Whether it's campaigning for gun control, native rights, black lives matter, or even all lives matter, there is a platform for "anyone" to protest or participate in politics. You may be wondering why the word "anyone" is being put in quotations. There is an invisible limit to the public's tolerance of who and who cannot of this matter. The "who cannot" of this situation has primarily been: Liberals.

Liberals are commonly defined as those that favor both equality and changes small or large regarding improving the existing system, environment, or situation. However, with almost every reaction in society regarding liberals and politics, there is a co-reaction. This co-reaction has become the deciding factor of the way in which these groups are perceived as the "who can" and the "who cannot", or in fancy dictionary terms, political rhetoric.

According to the Washington Post, "political rhetoric is the use of persuasive language in order to rationalize empirical arguments, appeals to emotions or tightly held beliefs within politics". It is used in every news outlet and by every politician across the world, but the pattern used by the conservative side of the government is particularly excessive. For example, look at our current president Donald Trump's speech on Colin Kaepernick's protest movement.

'Unlike the NFL, you always honour our flag': Trump attacks anthem protest againwww.youtube.com

As you can see Trump uses political rhetoric in order to push his purpose. Trump says,

"You're proud of our country, you're proud of our history, and unlike the NFL, you always honor and cherish our great American flag."

In this statement, Trump uses a large amount of pathos logic in his statement in order to make the audience feel as though this issue affects them personally. He also compels the audience themselves to think that they are above the issue presented by the protesters. There is a similar and particular pattern in the rhetoric against the left side of the government.

Political rhetoric across any and all areas of the news networks respective audience need to be purposeful and effective. However, the structuralism of this rhetoric cannot be explicit or it won't be received well by audiences. These invisible structures include binaries. Binaries or binary oppositions as it is formally known are the systems by which, in language and thought, two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another.

For example, we can only know love because we have experienced hate or vice versa.

The pattern that most political rhetoric against liberals follows is simple:

1) Include an optional sign of compassion or understanding for the other side

2) Use binary oppositions to strengthen your argument

3) Include either pathos, ethos, or logos modes

4) And lastly, twist the connotations of words language to create a false narrative about your subject

Kianna: To explain this further, let's look at a video in which political rhetoric is used heavily against gun control protesters.

Conservatives Attack Parkland Survivors Once Again: The Daily Showwww.youtube.com

The politician says:

"I think it's a horrible tragedy and I am heartbroken, but I also know that their sorrow can very easily be hijacked by left-wing groups who have an agenda. Well let's ask ourselves, do we really think, and I say this sincerely, do we really think 17-year-olds, on their own, are going to plan a nationwide rally…"

This statement follows our every step in the pattern for political rhetoric against liberals.

1) This politician opens with a sign of compassion by saying that the event was a "horrible tragedy" and that they were "heartbroken".

2) The binary in this statement is the use of the word "left-wing". The opposition to this word is "right-wing". The use of this binary opposition characterizes "left-wing" groups as the antagonist and the "right-wing" groups as the protagonist in this situation.

3) The politician attempts to display a logos approach to the situation by saying "...do we really think 17-year-olds, on their own, are going to plan a nationwide rally?"

4) He twists the connotation of the word "agenda" by pairing it with the word "hijacked" in order to create the assumption that left-wing groups are stealing the voices of young activists for their own purpose.

These subtle aspects of language can have a great impact on the individuals and groups that it is opposing. This language structure used by politicians and news anchors often perpetuates and spread the stereotypes of liberals. There are many effects that can be catalyzed by political rhetoric such as the shift of attention from aggressor to the victim in protest situations, the misidentification of the cause that liberals are pushing, and the connotation of liberals as a whole. This shift in the connotation of liberals can automatically cause an audience in favor of conservatives or an audience of bystanders to denote the pushes for positive change that many liberals are standing for.

This margin can often discourage liberals from advocating their positions on politics, economics, and society, but luckily, in recent years the tables are turning. This rhetoric has mainly motivated people who consider themselves as liberal to change their connotation and try harder to push their point across to the democratic, bipartisan, and even conservative public. We can see this especially in the younger demographic in individuals such as Emma Gonzales, Yara Shahidi, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, and Cameron Kasky.

The impact of political rhetoric has become an epidemic in the news media. The accessibility of media only increases this impact. Political rhetoric against liberals follows a particular language pattern that has the power to influence audiences of all kinds to associate a negative connotation with liberals, as well as discouraging liberals to promote awareness for cases that they see fit. Until the control of this political rhetoric becomes evident, the most that we as people can do is to recognize these language tactics and make informed decisions on the work and purpose of liberals.