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.
No comments:
Post a Comment