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>.
No comments:
Post a Comment