DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Propaganda was used technically by Thomas Jefferson in "The Declaration of Independence" frequently, and I found them to be very obvious in the document. The Cuesta College explains these techniques in their article over The Declaration. It clearly states, "the methods and approaches used to spread ideas that further a cause - political, commercial, religious, or civil cause (Recognizing)." They are justifying his use of propaganda by saying that he wanted to make his views more widely accepted, and he wanted to further his cause. Through attempting this, he resorts to using methods manipulative to the listener's point of view on the subject. While I do understand his point, he was going about it the wrong way. He should have presented real, factual, relevant information. 
The technique I found to be the most emphasized in the document was not really a technique, but just plain name-calling. To me, this part of his writing stood out the most. Here writes about one paragraph of real support, and then moves on to just spitting insults to King George III.  I would compare this to the types of political campaign commercials all over the media. He basically only wants to make a mockery of his opponents instead of strengthening his side of the argument. He really does not have much to say about himself, only things about how terrible the Parliament is. The entire Declaration was just one huge celebrity roast on George III. You cannot actually pick out very many of Jefferson's political opinions, only harsh comments on the king can be observed. People who call names on others often use this approach in debates. "Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down (Recognizing)."  Jefferson fits perfectly into this category. It is a sure thing that Jefferson wants to break down what the king has going. Although none of the Americans wanted the king's policies, they still should have supported an argument with better points as a country. He never really supports his own side, he only spends his words bringing down Parliament. It is possible that he is bashing the other side because he is not willing to accept his own lack of solution. Sure, he has no problem focusing all of his attention on the mistakes of others, but he cannot take the time to actually fix the problems that he complains of. He cannot solve the problems, he can only distinguish them and make them obvious to other people. His first sentence complains about the debate of personal freedoms, right off the bat. "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states (Wilhelm 122)."  In the rest of the document, he proceeds to criticize the every flaw on the British rule. I find this to be hypocritical. He talks about the American values being unaccepted by the English, as he is not accepting the English values. While the values of the British are overwhelming to the Americans, they should not have taken this approach. 



"Recognizing Propaganda Techniquesand Errors of Faulty Logic." Recognizing Propaganda--Guide to Critical Thinking--Academic Support. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm.


Wilhelm, Jeffrey D., Douglas Fisher, Kathleen A. Hinchman, David G. O'Brien, Taffy Raphael, and Cynthia Hynd. Shanahan. Glencoe Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.