Discurso político e poder no Brasil da era neoliberal: argumentação e construção do ethos no manuseio do poder

Abstract

In this study we conducted a study of argumentation and rhetoric of the construction of ethos in the pronoucements of former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, delivered in two seats held by each one, from 1995 until 2010. During the period, we examined a total of eight speeches: two pronouncements of possession and two pronoucements that we call "balance" of each ex-president. Therefore, considering the persuasive rhetoric as the essence of language and the ethos and image of itself that the speaker builds, we adopt a theoretical framework based on authors such as Aristotle andPerelman (rhetoric), and Amossy Charaudeau (ethos). As our work fits in the field of discourse analysis, in which the relationship text / context is essential and to facilitate the understanding of the relationship between political discourse and power, did a survey of the historical data that show the evolution of power in companies as well as discourse about thesocio-historical context of Brazil in the period considered.The results obtained allow us to observe that, with respect to ideology, both Cardoso and Lula have supported the social banner to legitimize their actions, this topic usually more associated with the left. The main differences between them lie, because in order to governand intentions of every person to ascend to the government. Therefore, in regard to the argumentative strategies, Cardoso sought to found his speech on efficiency, maintaining an image of credibility and success from past administrations. In those moments when the realitywas not favorable to the construction of that image, he sought to strategically direct the focus to the advances made possible by your government and the benefits this would provide yet.Lula, in turn, sought to found his speech at the change that would lead the country in new directions. To do so, his argument was based on their prior knowledge of the needs of the universal audience (the people), based on their origins. Sought, thus building an imagepaternal and fraternal, without, however, give the image of effective political and charismatic actor, therefore, suitable to the task of running the country.The handling of power, especially in the era of globalization, does not allow ideological currents despise content - a priori - could easily be identified on a chain and not the other (as is the case of social struggles). At first, the correction of social injustice is a recognized flag of the said parties of the left and not necessarily of the said parties of the right.What we observed is that, currently, the crux of the argument is in social policy, ie, regardless of ideological positions of parties in general, they raise the same banner of combating inequalities, each in its own way. Apparently, the current political reality of doing, who do not adjust to these new requirements is likely to experience a long exile from power.