2.3.5.2 Tolerance and Opposition to Persuasive Argumentation

In fact, some people generally tolerate all means of expression and nearly all points of view; in spite of this, it does not embarrass to deliver a speech which would and should be preferably forbidden by everyone (e.g. any kind of hate speech, speech promoting the violent overthrow of the functional political system, speech advocating the racial intolerance or approving the 9/11 attack on the United States etc.). The number of people who are willing to tolerate such extreme opinions is, with a high degree of probability, extremely small. The tolerance and intolerance of such speeches should be then measured and treated as continuous and unidimensional. Naturally, the endpoints of psychological and political measurement scales refer to individuals with various diverse views or, at least, individuals with various degree of intensity. As an example may be listed the case of some of the Democrats pertaining to the so-called "Yellow Dog" variety who are stronger than simply strong in their views. Since the proportion of people in categories like political tolerance is expected to be small no practical implications for analysis in this sense seems to be possible. The tolerance may not thus be perceived as dychotomic category; instead, variation in this sense would be best represented by a single unidimensional continuum because people differ in the degree of their willingness to dispose of opposing opinions (Gibson 318-319).

The politician shows the power which he actually possesses and which he wants to exhibit according to the particular situation and the audience before he is standing up. It is significant that the nature of the political, economical and social hierarchies together with the relations of elites influence the exhibited power. In other words, power exemplifies the form of external boundaries for the discipline which is marked as cultural pragmatics. These external boundaries parallel the internal ones which are exemplified by performance background representation (Alexander 535).

2.4 The Position of the us in Contemporary World

Finally, it would be beneficial to draw out briefly the role which recent United States represent in world politics; only so it would be possible to better understand the motives that lead the US president to use various persuasive techniques in his political speeches.

First of all, he is bound to the particular political culture. Understanding it means to find a key to the "doctrinal content and ideological bases of the political system - its portrayal of national interests, its discourse about national security, public perception of the national leadership, and the arguments that fuel foreign policy (Martínez and Brena 48).

Historically, the US is based upon the deep conviction that actions that they make are supported by various ideals. For instance, since the last Reagan administration in 1980 the USA has tried to convince the rest of the world of the benefits and infallibility of liberal free market ideology. Consequently, the best model of society is portrayed as: free markets’ competition in capital, services and goods, corporations which aims to maximize shareholder value, stock markets for buying and selling corporate control and, especially, the government's minimal intervention in the markets, i.e. only in cases of its obvious failure (Wade 201-202).

Surely, although the US is among the world's political and economic leaders, it lost its former position, national consensus and alliances that were typical after the World War II. Moreover, it has even failed to maintain its military power that it holds at the time of Gulf War at the beginning of the 1990swhen it had overcome the crisis of the 1980s and tried to hold the leadership and control of the word order after the fall of the European socialist systems and the Soviet Union. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 caused various turbulences, conflicts and contradictions in the world's politics. The US had to readjust to the new situation and, logically, this new role of the US has affected its international position and behavior. To comment it briefly, the US consolidate a new ideological theory that, although it was directed against a new kind of enemy, simply renewed the elements deeply rooted in the US political culture - to legitimize domestic politics. Instead of communism a new enemy has appeared - terrorism (Martínez and Brena 48). The US has been fighting against the terrorism and, furthermore, has been trying to persuade the others to join in the effort to overthrow it. Especially this aspect would be probably one of the most typical motives of persuasion in political speech.