Rhetorical Analysis Third Paper

Kevin (Kyoo Sang) Jo

Professor Glen McClish

RWS 600 Third Paper

16 December 2013

Rhetorical Analysis of Obama’s Speeches

Introduction

In the 2012 presidential election in South Korea, there were as many issues as in previous times. Most noticeable was the fact that a new politician suddenly appeared on the stage. He was a rookie who had never done political activities. Of course, he was famous because he was a medical doctor, professor, self-taught computer entrepreneur, and corporate leader, who is representative of everything mainstream Korea dreams of becoming. However, he became more popular to the public since he held a nationwide talk show to encourage hopeless young people. As his words and thoughts were exposed in the media, the general public considered him as an alternative to existing politicians. This is because many people have deep animosity and distrust toward political parties and the legislature. Unfortunately, he resigned as a presidential candidate in the candidate unification process. Now, he is actively involved in political activities as a congressman. This social phenomenon was called “Ahn Cheol-Soo syndrome,” named after him by the media. Through the issue, I realize how important politicians’ speech via media is because the public knows them only by media.

Just as in the aforementioned case, I think that President Obama also became popular through public speaking. His great speeches would be one of main factors helping him to be elected as the president. In such a respect, it would be meaningful to analyze his speech’s strength from the rhetorical perspective. I have selected two influential speeches of his before he was elected: “The keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention” (Hereafter DNC) and “A More Perfect Union” (Hereafter MPU).

DNC received nationwide attention and made him overnight a rising star within the national Democratic Party. Through this speech, Obama drew the public’s attention about a presidential future and reissued his memoir, Dreams from My Father. The address included both a biographical sketch of Obama, his own vision of America, and the reasons for his support of John Kerry for the presidency. MPU is delivered on March 18, 2008, in the course of the contest for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination. This speech is a response to the controversial remarks made by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor. Obama addressed the broader issue of race such as racial tensions, white privilege, and race and inequality in the United States. The speech’s title was taken from the Preamble to the United States Constitution. He also criticized Wright’s controversial comments while he defended Wright’s personality.

I would discuss Obama’s speeches with respect to two different perspectives: Aristotle’s proofs and the Burkean view. Aristotle originally classified proofs (the ways of making speech persuasive) in three kinds, based on whether they originate in the speech (logos), the speaker (ethos), or the listener (pathos). It’s customary, as in other points of rhetorical theory, to use the ancient Greek terms for the proofs because this defines them more precisely (Keith 36). On the other hand, Burke’s perspective on rhetoric is extremely complex and difficult, but he is a major influence on contemporary thought about persuasion. His account of rhetoric was the first serious challenge to the tradition of Aristotle; he moved rhetoric away from a civic context and understood it as the primary force in human social life (Keith 50). Therefore, I would compare these two perspectives and suggest some interesting findings from the analysis. In spite of the fact that nonverbal language such as gestures is also important in the rhetoric of speeches, the analysis would be restricted within only written text of speeches.

Audience and purpose

Although these two speeches are addressed to Democratic audiences, both speeches were broadcasted by television or viewed on YouTube by the public. Therefore, the audiences are the US citizens in the broad way and Obama also calls the audience “America!” in the last paragraph of DNC.

The purpose of DNC is to raise the bond of supporters and draw the citizen’s interest. The contents of the speech also focus on heightening the emotions of the audience as well as to appeal for support for the Democratic Party presidential candidate. On the other hand, the purpose of MPU is to block interracial division which may happen due to the controversial remarks made by the Reverend Wright, Obama’s former pastor. That Obama emphasizes the union repeatedly through the whole text coincides with such a purpose.

Logos, ethos, and pathos

Above all, the most important source of Obama’s persuasiveness is his ethos: honesty and trustworthiness. He describes his personal history with the diversity of his heritage in an honest tone as follows: “My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. . . . While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. . . . They’re both passed away now. And yet, I know that on this night they look down on me with great pride” (DNC). This also appears in MPU: “I’m the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. . . . I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and I’ve lived in one of the world’s poorest nations” (MPU). The diversity of his heritage is identified with the nation, America, consisting of a variety of ethnicities, which entails maximizing his ethos: “I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents. And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its part – that out of many, we are truly one” (MPU). After all, the audience, the US citizens, finds him more credible seeing his personal background that reflects the characteristics of America.

Obama appeals to the audience’s emotion through imagery. He creates pictures of common neighbors with economic difficulties by stating that “We have more work to do – more work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour . . . more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college” (DNC). He also shows the audience an example of normal neighbors by stating, “If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent” (DNC). These carefully constructed images evoke emotion in the audience.

In MPU, Obama’s claim is very simple: “We should construct a more perfect union.” To suggest a ground of his claim Obama quotes the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” In other words, his claim is not just private opinion but the public value which the US Constitution defines and we all have to pursue. This is a good backing or warrant of his claim. However, Obama presents a powerful reason in the last part by relating an anecdote about a young white woman who organized for his campaign in South Carolina and the personal connection she made with an elderly black volunteer. She is a young, 23-year-old woman, a white woman named Ashley Baia. At a roundtable discussion of Obama’s campaign where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there, she tells everyone that the reason she joined the campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents like her. And she asks an elderly black man who was sitting there quietly why he’s there. He does not bring up a specific issue and simply says to everyone, “I am here because of Ashley.” At this time, Obama states that “It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document right here in Philadelphia, that is where perfection begins” (MPU). Giving examples like an anecdote above are an effective way in which arguments get adapted to audiences, since examples can be chosen to be very specific to the audience. This real example enhances his logos and supports the claim Obama is making.

Burkean view

Looking into the claim with the perspective of Burke’s identification, we can see that Obama tries to identify the audience with America by personifying it with a positive image: “a tolerant America,” “a generous America,” and “What we know, what we have seen, is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation.” He also identifies himself with America by stating, “I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American history” (DNC). He consistently uses “We” not “I” to include his audience. This strategy can viewed as a kind of “constitutive rhetoric” in the broad way. Therefore, he could count on his audiences to think that America’s goal is their goal by maintaining that America keeps on pursuing “union”: “a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time” (MPU). He also directly quotes from the US Constitution: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union” (MPU). Obama emphasizes the necessity of union: “It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document right here in Philadelphia, that is where perfection begins” (MPU). Similarly in DNC, he argues the importance of union by stating that “It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family. E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one’” (DNC).

In Burke’s view, the fundamental element of persuasion is identification, the perceived sympathy, empathy, or analogy between speaker and audience. Although Obama identifies the audience with America like the previous discussion, he also identifies himself with America from the similarity between them. While he explains his personal history, he illuminates a common analogy, diversity. His family consists of various races just as he says that “I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents” (MPU). Also, a multiracial nation is one of noticeable characteristics explaining the United States. Through this analogy, the audience feels familiarity from him and thinks him as a representation of America. This results in making him distinct and unique just as he states, “And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in any other country on earth is my story even possible. It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one” (MPU). In the end, identification among Obama, America, and audiences creates strong bond among them.

According to Burke, there are two kinds of terms: terms that put things together, and terms that take things apart (McClish 78). In other words, we can interpret a certain case in terms of either continuity or discontinuity. If we interpret a distinction through a terministic screen positing difference of degree, it would stress the principle of continuity. On the contrary, if we use a terministic screen based on differences of kind, it would follow the principle of discontinuity. Burke also argues that “All terminologies must implicitly or explicitly embody choices between the principle of continuity and the principle of discontinuity” (McClish 78). Looking into the speech of DNC in the Burke’s viewpoint, we can note that it provides a terministic screen of discontinuity because Obama places stress upon a division between the citizens. Obama blames a specific group of people for their problems: “Now, even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us: the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers, who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. . . . The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States” (DNC). In the aforementioned quotes, Obama victimizes a specific group such as the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers, and the pundits. This creates a division within the audience. The victim, whoever it may be, is condemned. This is a kind of scapegoat, as a device that unifies all those who share the same enemy. As a result, the audience agrees with Obama, who takes action against the victim, because he confronts the common enemy.

Such a division can be found in MPU. Obama clearly states his stance against Wright by stating that “Now I've already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain. . . . But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. . . . As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity” (MPU). Obama draws a line from Wright by clearly criticizing his opinion. This results in the effect that the audience regards those who agree with Wright’s view as the enemy disrupting the America’s unity.

Conclusion

Burke oriented his writing about language specifically to its social context. Similarly, he studied language as involving more than logical discourse and grammatical structure because he recognized that the social context of language cannot be reduced to principles of pure reason (Wikipedia/Kenneth Burke). In analyzing texts rhetorically, Burke provided a new framework, in other words, a new perspective. Through comparison of two influential speeches of Obama, I realize that the same texts can be interpreted differently if they are applied to a different framework. For example, Obama’s explanation of his personal history commonly found in both speeches functions to enhance his ethos in the framework of Aristotle. However, in the framework of Burke’s identification, it results in familiarity between Obama and the audiences. Of course, it is in common to strengthen the speaker’s persuasiveness but, Burke’s viewpoint seems to be more integrated and comprehensive because it offers an account of how people relate to language and to each other simultaneously. Also, it features how the text interacts with the audience rather than what effects it gives to the audience by itself.

Through a comparison of Obama’s two speeches, I could find various common things as follows:

l  Claim of “union”

l  Emphasis on “dream” and “hope”

l  Challenges of health care, education, and employment

l  Personal history with the diversity of his heritage

l  Citation of the US Constitution

The first three items are about the contents and the last two items are about both the contents and rhetorical devices. Regarding the contents of both speeches, there appeared to be key terms such as union, dream, and hope interestingly. His coherent emphasis on such key terms shows that they are the important value and goal which Obama tries to pursue in his period. In addition, Obama repeatedly mentioned three problems such as health care, education, and employment through the whole text in both speeches. This also shows what he considers to solve as the priority. A recent law called Obamacare is a proof of that. I think that it is meaningful to investigate if these common things also appear in other speeches Obama addressed after.

   

Works Cited

Keith, William and Lundberg, Christian. The Essential Guide to Rhetoric. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s P, 2008. Print.

Obama, Barack. “2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address.” American Rhetoric. 2004. Web. 10 December 2013.

Obama, Barack. “A More Perfect Union.” American Rhetoric. 2008. Web. 10 December 2013.

McClish, Glen. “Language as Action: Terministic Screens, Kenneth Burke.” RWS 600 Course Reader. Ed. Glen McClish. San Diego: Montezuma, 2013. 75-80. Print.

Wikipedia/Kenneth Burke. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 6 November 2013. Web. 10 December 2013.