The American Dream has been socialized into the psyche of all citizens of this country. Americans perpetuate the this dream through individual and unique success stories. Dr. Robert C. Rowland and John M. Jones, scholars of rhetorical analysis, break the American dream narrative into two categories: individual heroism and communal strife.
Both narratives of the American Dream have already been used in 2016 presidential campaigns. But similar to the term “all men are created equal,” some of the candidate’s American Dream testimonies may be limiting larger institutional issues of social, political and economic opportunity. By polarizing a message of individual and communal success, candidates can discredit Americans who have tried and failed at the American Dream.
So the question becomes whether Americans should hold politicians morally responsible for broadcasting the American Dream narrative. One could argue that the American Dream narrative hides institutional, structural oppression of people by celebrating individual victories. Yet, one could also say that politicians hold their testimonies sovereign and have a right to broadcast a story that is their own.
Dr. Benjamin Carson, a neurosurgeon with a best-selling book, started off his presidential campaign announcement with the testimony of his mother. Carson’s mother longed for an education but dropped out of school in the third grade, later marrying at the age of thirteen. He said on May 4 of this year, “[She worked] trying to stay off of welfare and the reason for that was she noticed that most of the people she saw go on welfare never came off of it and she didn’t want to be dependent…”. Carson, as a successful surgeon, author and presidential hopeful, draws a stark contrast to her condition while still having an emotional connection to her. The narrative moves listeners to suppose that because Carson’s mother did it, the average American can too.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also invokes her mother’s testimony in a campaign ad from this summer. Clinton’s story is individualistic in nature, but the solution is communal, moving the rhetoric’s responsibility on to the American people. Clinton shares that her mother was abandoned by her parents at the age of eight and moved to several cities until getting a job as a home attendant at the age of fourteen. She says, “People showed her kindness and gave her a chance,” and “when she needed a champion, someone was there.” Clinton portrays her mother as an underdog but saved by the goodness of her community.
An individualistic American Dream narrative appears in the first five minutes of Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential candidacy announcement on April 14 of this year. Rubio tells the story of his parents, both from poor Cuban families. Rubio explains to a crowd of a hundred, “My parents had big dreams for themselves,” and that, “Their future was destined to be defined by their past.”
Rubio ties in the success of his family with a supposed attitude change of the average American: “The problem is too many Americans are starting to doubt if that dream is still possible.” He then ties in student loan debt and small business owners with too many taxes as a result of poor leadership. He gives the emotional testimony to evoke a response in the audience to anticipate new structural changes in the larger framework of American domestic policy.
Without a link to everyday issues, the dream narrative can be polarizing and idealistic. To celebrate the success of an individual as a case study for the success of millions creates false hope and does not address societal limitations on the American people. Yet, these testimonies have resonance with politicians and they have the right to share them. Therefore, the question if it is morally wrong to do so still remains.
-This article was originally published in The Prindle Post.
-Houghlaten is a Prindle intern.