Do Politicians Exploit Grief?
Politicians have often relied on the stories of those who have suffered to help move or change the minds of the electorate. This was on display at both the Republican and Democratic conventions last month, and voters will likely see more of this as the Election Day approaches. But is this exploitative? Should politicians use the grief and sadness of others to campaign?
* rely on ~ = ~에 의지[의존]하다, ~을 필요로 하다/ the electorate = (전체) 유권자/ on display = 전시[진열]되다/ exploitative = 착취하는, 부당하게 사용하는/ grief = (특히 누구의 죽음으로 인한) 비탄[비통]
정치인들은 다른 이들의 비탄과 슬픔을 캠페인 운동을 위해 사용해야 하나요?
1. Candidates Benefit When Grief Inspires Hope
When it comes to grief, redemption, not blame or criticism, is the more powerful message
that politicians should harness.
2. Politicians Should Connect Grief to Policies
If politicians are going to politicize grief — and more particularly, the grief of others —
they must offer a policy recommendation.
3. Raising Awareness Enriches the Political Process
Bereaved military families in particular fill gaps in the political discourse of a country
where less than 1 percent of the population serves in the military.
4. It’s Not O.K. for Politicians to Exploit People’s Grief
Our political leaders set the tone for their party's conventions.
They exploited the grief of parents, and no good comes from that.
5. From the Victims’ Perspective, Stories Can Spur Action
Some say sharing stories of grief exploits those who share them.
Yet those stories are what often moves lawmakers to do something.
6. Politicians Must Connect with the Sacrifice of Soldiers
Those who die for their country are more than heroes. Without them, without their sacrifice, there is no nation.
Sample Essay
It’s Not O.K. for Politicians to Exploit People’s Grief
It’s O.K. to politicize grief. “Politicize” simply means to make something a part of the political process. But it’s not O.K. to exploit grief.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans exploited grief at their party conventions, and sadly missed an opportunity to bring healing and unity to the nation.
At the Republican Convention when Patricia Smith publicly mourned her son, Benghazi victim Sean Smith, it answered Hillary Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?” It put a spotlight on the individual lives deeply wounded by that tragedy.
At the Democratic Convention, the parents of Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier killed while fighting for America in Iraq, showed the world that we can be anti-Jihad without being anti-Muslim.
But what could have been unifying moments became pot shots at opposing presidential candidates. Patricia Smith called Hillary Clinton a liar, and Humayun Khan called Donald Trump selfish and bigoted. Smith’s pain could have been used as a clarion call for answers to what really happened in Banghazi. Kahn’s love for his son could have been used to stir up patriotism and pride for all of those serving in our military, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
These pot shots are the fault of our leaders, who set the tone for their conventions, not the grieving parents. They exploited the grief of these parents, and no good comes from that.
