My Experience with the Rhetorical Analysis

     I honestly enjoyed working on this rhetorical analysis. At first, I struggled to see passed who the speaker was and what message he conveyed in his speech. However, rather than just observe the opinions of these speakers as one would observe a piece of art, it was exciting to dig deeper into each speech. It was fun to discover both the strengths as well as the flaws scattered throughout them. I felt like a detective searching for clues as to how each piece was constructed. I can't seem to stop doing it either! Every time I listen to a song or speech, I pay close attention to details such as rhetorical devices and the overall flow of the piece. Overall, it was a great learning experience. There are still many bits of rhetoric that I fail to uncover, but with practice I hope to learn more and better understand the messages of the world around me.

The Final Rhetorical Analysis

Ta-da! She's finished! What think ye?

Courting America with Words

Many see the rhetoric of politicians as the frantic hurling of pistols and grenades in order to get their way. However, we forget that these individuals are not trying to slaughter their audience; rather they are attempting win their approval. They are like two boys competing for a girl. They put on their best cologne, present flowers and chocolates, and do everything within their power to win the heart of their desired lady. The man who pleases her the most wins.

Politicians do the very same. However, instead of presenting themselves to their audience with roses and delicacies, they come to them prepared with carefully organized rhetoric. We see this in the case of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2006 and 2007 as they compete for the same girl: the religious community in America. These two politicians make appeals to Americans in different ways just as two gentlemen will court a lady by using different methods. In competing for the same girl, which of these men portrays the better suitor?

            Obama makes the first move toward his audience in a direct manner. He forms his speech around the argument, “Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion…Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics” (The New York Times). In an attempt to appeal to such a religious audience, stating this thesis up front is clearly a terrible idea. This is why Obama strategically waits until the middle of the speech to address his argument rather than bring it up at the very beginning. He creates a large buffer for this thesis by discussing his own personal experience with religion. This is a very effective way to level himself with his audience. Had he not done this, he would have easily been talking down to them and thus would not have pleased them in the slightest.

            Obama continues to please his audience by immediately mentioning the opposing view of his ideas. In doing this, he acknowledges that there is another side to the issue and rebuttals that with his own experiences and reasoning. His rebuttals to counterarguments are almost always references to the Bible. This is the perfect tool to use in appealing to his audience because the Bible is an enormous part of their lives.

            As he finds additional ways to relate to his audience, Obama also does much to level himself with them, which helps to capture their attention and appeal to them. He doesn’t use flowery language; his word choice is very direct and he speaks clearly to them. He becomes even more personable to them as he relates a number of personal experiences with his own conversion. He even uses words like “folks,” which is common jargon used by this particular audience. Although it is informal, it appeals to them because, again, it levels himself with them and makes him seem more like their friend.

            Obama excels in terms of portraying himself as a real and appealing person to his audience. However, he also has his occasional missteps. Some of these, though seemingly small, have a profound effect on the reader as well as the listener. No romantic date is ever absolutely perfect, and neither is a speech. 

            One of these blunders is found in his repetition of the phrase, “And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own” (New York Times). He uses this phrase once, inserts another sentence, and then repeats the phrase. Although repetition is not necessarily improper, and normally is used to emphasize a point, Obama’s use of it undermines his argument more than anything. The phrase is repeated too soon. Not only that, but the phrase itself is much too long to make a rhythmic, smooth repetition. It is more obnoxious than anything, which distracts from his argument and takes from his credibility as a well-educated author. 

Obama slips again when he talks about receiving a negative note from a doctor concerning some of his views that were written on his website. He says, “In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary” (The New York Times). He then goes on to explain how he changed the language on his website after this discovery. In mentioning that his staff had written the offensive material, he deflects the blow to himself and throws his staff under the bus due to something for which he was responsible. This shows that he is not willing to accept his own mistakes. It is almost childish. It damages his argument because the audience cannot take him very seriously. For all they know, he may throw them under the bus for something too.

This is a mistake that Mitt Romney avoids as he too presents himself to religious society in America. His speech is built up to emphasize his thesis, “I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.' Reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day” (NPR). This is an excellent thesis to use in order to attract his devoutly religious audience. He constantly discusses this thesis, but he also makes a point to acknowledge, like Obama, the other side of the issue. In a way, he uses this as a springboard to add more strength to his argument.

            Although Romney does not use as many personal experiences as Obama, he relies heavily on the use of various rhetorical devices to drive his point across. He uses language that is very poetic and metaphorical. For example, in the beginning of his speech, he creates an antimetabole when he declares, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” (NPR). Not only does it add to his credibility as an intelligent author, but it also creates a figurative picture of the hopeful future that these religious leaders desire. It is rhythmic and poetic, mimicking the smooth speaking style of a religious leader. It emphasizes his point and creates power in his argument. It is soothing to the ear the same way a romantic ballad is lulling the listener.

Romney’s political ballad continues as he repeatedly gives examples of actions done and statements made by well-known American leaders such as Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Abraham Lincoln. These references serve to back up his arguments. After all, who would disagree with someone as legendary and influential as Abraham Lincoln? With this in mind, Romney uses multiple citations from these leaders and thus his arguments ring true with his audience. They are more likely to agree, which wins more approval in his behalf.

Romney’s clever rhetoric powerfully launches its Cupid’s arrows. It directly hits and wins the heart of his primary audience when he mentions a variety of faiths such as Christians, Muslims, and Jews. This is a very smooth move because his audience almost entirely consists of these particular faiths. Overall, Romney does much to create a convincing argument as well as a powerful one.  

            However, Romney’s love-arrow barely misses the heart of his secondary audience. He addresses religious groups, but never says anything about those who are without religion. The speech is entirely directed to those who believe in God, but Romney makes no attempt to even mention the atheists and agnostics who also make up a large portion of the United States population. They are completely ignored as a secondary audience. Even Obama made a mention of these people in his own speech. Had Romney done this, his argument would have been much more convincing to the primary and the secondary audience.

            Romney makes another serious misstep when he states, “Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president” (NPR). Who exactly is this candidate from Massachusetts? Romney never mentions him by name. No one has any idea if he is a Republican, Democrat, honorable individual, or a questionable figure. No one even knows the name of this mysterious candidate. Has Romney left out these details “just because” or is he trying to use an example from someone untrustworthy in order to build up his own argument? This lack of details creates a sense that Romney is hiding something, which engenders a feeling of distrust in his audience. Everyone knows that a dating relationship cannot survive while harboring even the slightest lack of trust.

            Like the analysis of two eager boys, we see both the strong points and the weaknesses of these politicians. Obama’s approach presents reason while Romney’s radiates power. In the end of this romantic competition, it appears that Obama makes the better appeal and thus portrays the better suitor. He wins the heart of both audiences, while Romney mostly appeals to one. His offerings of clear, sincere, and straight-forward arguments are more attractive than Romney’s rhetorical ballad and slight secrecy. Obama’s use of language brings him level with his audience, making him more of a real person and a trustworthy friend to them. This does much to win the fancy of the primary audience as well as the secondary audience. In this case, less truly is more. Obama’s sincere, straightforward approach wins him the hand of the fair lady while Romney’s rhetoric-packed ballad leaves him singing the blues alone. Barack Obama’s manner of appealing wins the heart of the girl we all know as religion in America and America as a whole.  

Works Cited

Obama, Barack. "Obama’s 2006 Speech on Faith and Politics." The New York Times. 28 June 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.

Romney, Mitt. "Transcript: Mitt Romney's Faith Speech." NPR. 6 Dec. 2007. Web. 2 Feb. 2016. 

Newer Draft of the Rhetorical Analysis

Is is better? I sure hope so!

Many see the rhetoric of politicians as the frantic hurling of pistols and grenades in order to get their way. However, we forget that these individuals are not trying to slaughter their audience; rather they are attempting win their approval. They are like two boys competing for a girl. They put on their best cologne, present flowers and chocolates, and do everything within their power to win the heart of their desired lady. The man who pleases her the most is the winner.

Politicians do the very same. However, instead of presenting themselves to their audience with roses and delicacies, they come to them prepared with carefully organized rhetoric. We see this in the case of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2006 and 2007 as they compete for the same girl: the religious community in America. These two politicians make appeals to Americans in different ways just as two gentlemen will court a lady by using different methods. In competing for the same girl, which of these men wins?        

            Obama makes the first move toward his audience in a more direct manner. He forms his speech around the argument, “Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion…Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics” (New York Times). In an attempt to appeal to such a religious audience, stating this thesis up front may not seem to be the best idea. This is why Obama strategically waits until the middle of the speech to address his argument rather than bringing it up at the very beginning. He creates a large buffer for this thesis by discussing his own personal conversion. This is a very effective way to level himself with his audience. Had he not done this, he would have easily been talking down to them and thus would not have pleased them in the slightest.

            Obama continues to please his audience by immediately mentioning the opposing view of his opinion. In doing this, he acknowledges that there is another side to the issue and rebuttals that with his own experiences and reasoning. His rebuttals to counterarguments are almost always references to the Bible. This is the perfect tool to use in appealing to his audience, because they live by the words and stories of the Bible.

            As he finds additional ways to relate to his audience, Obama also does much to level himself with his audience, which helps to capture their attention and appeal to them. He doesn’t use flowery language; his word choice is very direct and he speaks clearly to them. He becomes even more personable to them as he relates a number of personal experiences with religion and his own conversion. He even uses words like “folks,” which is common jargon used by this particular audience. Although it is informal, it appeals to them because, again, it levels himself with them and makes him seem more like their friend.

            Obama excels in terms of portraying himself as a real and appealing person to his audience. However, he also has his occasional missteps. Some of these, though seemingly small, have a profound effect on the reader as well as the listener. No romantic date is ever absolutely perfect, and neither is a speech. 

            One of these blunders was found in his repetition of the phrase, “And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own” (New York Times). He uses this phrase the first time, inserts another sentence, and then repeats the phrase. Although repetition is not necessarily improper, and normally is used to emphasize a point, Obama’s use of it undermines his point more than anything. The way it is used here makes it seem as though one is listening to a broken record that repeats itself because the phrase is repeated too soon. Not only that, but the phrase itself is much too long to make a rhythmic, smooth repetition. It is more obnoxious than anything, which distracts from his argument and takes from his credibility as an intelligent author. 

Another is when he talks about receiving a negative note from a doctor concerning some of his views. He says, “In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary” (Obama). He then goes on to say how he changed the language after this discovery. In bringing up that his staff had written the offensive material, he basically deflects the blow to himself and throws his staff under the bus for something for which he was responsible. This damages his argument because it shows that he is not as willing to accept his own mistakes.

            Religious society in America is also addressed by Mitt Romney, who takes a different approach. His speech is built up to emphasize his thesis, “I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.' Reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day” (NPR). This is an excellent thesis to use in order to attract his devoutly religious audience. He constantly talks about this thesis, but he also makes a point to acknowledge, like Obama, the other side of the issue. In a way, he uses this as a springboard to add more strength to his own argument.

            Although Romney does not use as many personal experiences as Obama, he relies heavily on the use of various rhetorical devices to drive his point across. His language use is very poetic and metaphorical. For example, in the beginning of his speech, he creates an antimetabole when he declares, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” (NPR). Not only does it add to his credibility as an intelligent author, but it also creates a figurative picture of the hopeful future that these religious leaders want to see. It is rhythmic and poetic, mimicking the smooth speaking style of a religious leader. It emphasizes his point and creates a power in his argument. It is soothing to the ear the same way a romantic ballad lulls the listener.

            Romney repeatedly gives examples of actions done and things said by well-known American leaders such as Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Abraham Lincoln. These references serve to back up his arguments. After all, who would disagree with someone as legendary and influential as Abraham Lincoln? With this in mind, Romney uses multiple and thus his arguments make more sense to his audience. They are more likely to agree, which wins more in his behalf.

Romney’s clever rhetoric powerfully launches its Cupid’s arrows. It directly hits and wins the heart of his primary audience when he mentions a variety of faiths such as Christians, Muslims, and Jews. This is a very smooth move because his audience is almost entirely consisting of these particular faiths. Overall, Romney does much to create a convincing argument as well as a powerful one.  

            However, Romney’s love-arrow barely misses the heart of his secondary audience. He addresses religious groups, but never even mentions those who are without religion. The speech is entirely directed to those who believe in God, but Romney makes no attempt to even seem to glance at the atheists and agnostics who also make up a large portion of the United States population. They are completely ignored as a secondary audience, and Cupid’s arrow wizzes past them. Even Obama made a mention of these people in his own speech. Had Romney done this, his argument would have been much more convincing to the primary and the secondary audience.

            Romney makes another serious misstep when he states, “Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president” (NPR). Who exactly is this candidate from Massachusetts? Romney never mentions him by name. No one has any idea if he is a Republican, Democrat, honorable individual, or a questionable figure. No one even knows the name of this mysterious candidate! Has Romney left out those details “just because” or is he just trying to use an example from someone untrustworthy in order to build up his own argument? This lack of details creates a sense that Romney is hiding something, which creates distrust in his audience. Everyone knows that a dating relationship cannot survive while harboring even the slightest lack of trust.

            In the end of this romantic competition, it appears that Obama makes the better appeal and thus portrays the better suitor. His offerings of clear, sincere, straight-forward arguments are more attractive than Romney’s rhetorical ballad. Obama’s use of language brings him level with his audience, making him more of a real person and a trustworthy friend to them. This does much to win the fancy of the primary audience as well as the secondary audience. In this case, less truly is more. Obama’s sincere, straightforward appeal wins him the hand of the fair lady while Romney’s rhetoric-packed ballad leaves him only singing the blues alone. Barack Obama’s manner of appealing wins the heart of the girl we all know as religion in America and America as a whole.  

Works Cited

Obama, Barack. "Obama’s 2006 Speech on Faith and Politics." The New York Times. 28 June 2006. Web. 3 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&>.

Romney, Mitt. "Transcript: Mitt Romney's Faith Speech." NPR. 6 Dec. 2007. Web. 2 Feb. 2016. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16969460>. 

Thesis Proposal for a Rhetorical Analysis

Now, instead of making the argument, I will be analyzing the arguments of others to decide which is created the best. Here we go!

Of the four speeches that we read in class, I feel that I am most intrigued by the speech given by Barack Obama as well as the speech by Mitt Romney. I have decided to analyze these two speeches because they were given around the same time. Obama and Romney, being from two different political parties, have some very different views concerning religion and politics. This causes me to believe that they have similar jargon and background knowledge, thus making their speeches more similar in that sense. I want to find the rhetorical devices used in each speech and determine which rhetorician is the most effective. Since the audiences were religious leaders, I want to decide who makes a better appeal to his audience.

In order to do this, I plan to first analyze what the writer did well. Romney enhanced the overall flow of his speech with repetition and rhythm. Obama made an appeal to his ethos by relating personal experiences. These, among others, were things that each author did to strengthen his argument as well as improve the quality of his speech.

After this analysis, I want to point out mistakes that each one made. I don’t mean that they spelled incorrectly or used a semicolon instead of a period in the wrong place (although I will point out those if I find them). Both are effective, but they did use devices that weakened their arguments. I want to find these throughout both speeches and decide which made the most grave of mistakes.

In analyzing these good characteristics as well as bad ones, I think that it will help me to determine which made a better appeal to his audience. Thus, I will decide which is most effective. I plan to focus more on the rhetoric used rather than the arguments made.