Category: Barack Obama

Among all human qualities which control the most power is the ability to use, understand and communicate effectively through language. Proficient use of language allows us to clearly deliver ideas from one person to another or a group of people. The capability of conveying the state of mind is equal to the acquisition of power and the important link between these two is persuasion. The power of persuasion acknowledges certain individuals to be able to give influence and control a huge number of people and connect people together in discussing similar issues.

Persuasive power could easily be seen in the victory speech. This way has the purpose of assure thing is going on the right track as has been planned. In its application, variety of persuasive appeals in the victory speech since politics is based on the power of influencing. Discourse is one of the greatest means that may adjust the audience’s thinking and behavior. In Obama’s victory speech of 2008, he used tight paragraph structure and sophisticated lexical, tones with a formal form to enhance the efficiency of delivering the message. Furthermore, there are mainly three positions in the political field, namely the dominant hegemonic positions, the negotiated positions, and oppositional positions. During the speech, Obama tried to construct a coalition formation that combined the three prevailing groups. The use of language has an ideological effect and he successfully conveyed his ideology coherently through organized speech.

In the opening, Obama reconstructs the audience’s attitude from neutral to supportive. He strengthen his credibility and applied several strategies. Through this, his personal appeal as an orator automatically appears. “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our Founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” (Transcript: ‘This Is Your Victory,’ Says Obama, 2008). This statement shows that the president held a strong belief in America’s future. He guarantees the prospect of the American dream and the democracy of the USA. The phrase “ tonight is your answer”, he takes responsibility for being a reliable leader. His speech gave people a truthful feeling and consider him a role model. Since he promised that he would change America by the time he mentioned “ our Founder” to offer greatly different political policies from the past one. The speech would influence the audience’s cultural values and beliefs.

Moreover, “ Yes, we can” (Transcript: ‘This Is Your Victory,’ Says Obama, 2008) was more than just a slogan. It was the most frequently used phrase in his speech. Saying the slogan multiple times could make people believe that the crisis in America could be solved. These three words seemed simple but powerful. ”Yes” demonstrated his proven determination. Using “We” instead of “ You and I” indicated the unity among the candidate and the audiences who shared the same belief and balanced position.

This slogan expressed that voters are not individuals but an irreplaceable group that can change the state. The identification by using the pronouns“ we”, associated with the persuasive strategies of pathos conveyed the demands of audiences. They might consider themselves an “insider”, and the emotional appeals were closely linked with the identification. Obama administers the American Dream ideology to the public. In Karl Marx’s concept, “ Ideology is seen as an important means by which dominant forces in society, such as royalty, can exercise power over the subordinated group.” As Obama was the first black president in America, he boost a lot of supportive energy from the opposition groups. Different races of Americans expressed their royalty of Obama. Meanwhile, he could devote power over and spread the ideology. He is conscious of the ideology and language that could derive together in order to become a continuous method of gaining supporters. Obama was an orator who authorize emotive language well. He reminded that he was just an ordinary man like the rest of the people. ” I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, ….. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am.” (Transcript: ‘This Is Your Victory,’ Says Obama, 2008) He showed his appreciation to his family. Mentioning his grandmother had just passed away, has the purpose to win the sympathy of the audience. The whole paragraph was evolving the listener’s sentiment with the triumph of emotional sense. He dived deeply into their deep emotion. Besides, the triple and alliteration could easily optimize in the speech in order to increase the emotion. In triples, there were some categories of wording each time to get the desired result. Take this sentence as an example. “When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.” (Transcript: ‘This Is Your Victory,’ Says Obama, 2008) “ New deal, new jobs, and new sense” were the positive and energetic words, which implied a bright future.

Language is experienced every day by everyone in any circumstances. Its power can be tremendous and unlimited. Proficient use of language can allow us to communicate ideas and even persuade others to any point of view. Leaders have used this fact to control their constituents. Famous politicians and orators have used language to get them elected and win the election. Shortly, language is the basis for all knowledge and power.

Foreign Policy Achievements of Barack Obama

In 2008, former United States President Barrack Obama campaigned for president and reflected a fundamental change in the foreign policies of the United States of America. His promises were basically challenging, and changing old-fashioned dogmas that molded previous presidencies, from trying to rule the world, to ill-perceived efforts towards building the country in situations that many American citizens have always disregarded.

Objectives

To enable more efficient US involvement in situations that he believed were important, he saw the restoration of strategic solvency as a means of achieving that. His major objective was to drive the attention of the United States from military engagements in the Middle East that had characterized the US foreign policy for decades to the vibrant economic aspects of the Far East which he believed was having a significant influence on the health of the United States economy in terms of investment and trade. That shift also meant that prioritizing the economy of Europe and changes in security in the post-cold war error was no longer a big issue.

Obama also promised to redefine idealism in form of changing from what he believed were “un-American practices” including torture to renewing policies that were in line with the values of America and the constitution of the United States. However, His constitutional variant comprised of omissions of high consequences. The powers of the United States presidency were not to be reduced although he emphasized the re-establishment of the rule of law including constitutionalism.

Obama wanted presidential powers for use as a medium of the modern presidency, but not to reduce these powers. In his mind, he thought of the possibility of changing the foreign policy of America without altering its structures of operation. The developments of 2016 were a clear indicator that the unexpected consequences of his agreeable but defective imagination have without doubt prevented him from achieving his foreign policies and reduced his legacy in general.

The promise

Many of the promises made by candidate Obama during his campaign were not particular actions. This was especially during the issues of peace and war. The schedule for withdrawing the US military from Iraq had been already set by the “Status of Force Agreement” and this had already been signed by President George. W bush prior to Obama’s entrance to the White House in January 2009. This agreement clearly stated a complete withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq by December 2011(New York Times 2012).

A big change made by Obama was when he tripled the levels of the United States military forces in Afghanistan. This is not surprising though. During his complaint, he often regarded the Middle East Conflict particularly the Iraq war as a strategy for America’s worldwide campaign against global terrorism assured adequate support towards the fight in Afghanistan in terms of allocating more resources than had been witnessed in his predecessor’s administrations. The reduction of troops in Iraq and US military buildup in Afghanistan had to raise US force levels in these two legacy wars closer to levels that were unsustainable and longer than expected by many Americans including Obama himself.

Obama’s change promises were more of new ways of thinking about foreign policy. According to CNN 31, January (2008), He was quoted saying “I don’t want to just end the war but I won’t end the mindset that got us into war in the first place”, this was during his debate at a Democratic primary in 2008. With his presidency reaching 15 months, Obama once again announced “America’s commitment to seek peace without nuclear weapons”. He pledged a more even strategy to the security of America which believed was much better than the overly ambitious strategic objectives of Washington which were finite to the military and financial ability. In simple terms, his promise was to take a more rational step towards identifying the key interests of America’s security in regard to where it can intervene and where it cannot.

Obama’s promise was in other words, a more realistic understanding of America’s role in the global security arena which it had allocated itself at the time of the Cold War. Considering seventeen years after the breakup of the Soviet Union and a time when it is evident that there exists an overextension of America in terms of finance and military, the time for reassessment had come. Keeping up with the reassessment promise, Obama also pledged to drive resources away from what he regarded as stalemated competition for peripheral American mid-eastern interests.

Important Achievements

These episodes of weak leadership, disappointments, and defeats are just part of the story. The legacy of its foreign policies of Obama also includes some positive ones. His greatest foreign policy achievement is not grounded in the conventional foreign policy sphere in all terms. The looming financial disaster which was to have serious consequences on the authority and power of America in the global arena, world trade, and chain supply and result in mass unemployment more than America could persevere was what Obama helped to drive away in his early months in Office.

Some steps had already been taken by his predecessor in rescuing major banks whose failures would be disastrous and bailing out the auto industry but unemployment was rising rapidly and credit markets were still excessively frozen by the time Obama started his term as US President. It is Obama’s aggressive stimulus spending and steady-handed leadership that brought back confidence and halted the rapid economic decline. Not so many people believe that Obama’s Republican rival John McCain could have repaired such a difficult economic situation within months. It is easy to see that more direct federal and aggressive fiscal stimulus to provide relief to holders of mortgages and consumers would really be fruitful although it was easy to notice at that time. It is not easy to believe that the Democratic majority congress of 2009 would support such wide-reaching and powerful moves. America’s foreign policies were more solvent although as a result of the financial liberation moves that Obama made, these were more significant than it would else be.

Obama worked with allies from Europe and Russia in areas that are traditionally more related to foreign policy, to form a diplomatic move that was backed by multilateral sanctions. These moves proved very successful in blocking and persuading Iran to freeze its process of enriching bomb-grade Uranium. That move needed a decision to abandon the representative but unsuccessful one-sided maximalist approaches of his predecessors regarding the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

Conclusion

According to the policies discussed above, the achievements of Obama, his gaps, and ambiguous results are connected with incremental modulation of the foreign policies of the United States. That is what shapes the legacies of American presidents but I don’t critically mean that.

The speech that Barack Obama gave during his inauguration in the year 2009 utilized a central route to persuasion. A central route to persuasion has special features concerning the audience, processing, and the result. For example, there is a utilization of facts to convince the audience about a message’s worthiness. Notably, the audience should possess analytical skills and be willing to process the information they receive. These qualities were fulfilled during Barack Obama’s inauguration. The speech starts by acknowledging the presidency’s predecessors and how they desired to have a better country for its citizens and an environment for prosperity. These are facts that most of the audience is aware of and can relate to them in their lives. Moreover, the audience was motivated to listen to him and his plans for the country during his tenure as president of the US. The audience made a high effort to listen to what Barack Obama had to tell them as they evaluated the message he shared. These aspects were fulfilled by using a strong argument and reference to historical features tied to the US presidency. Hence, Barack Obama’s speech allowed him to change the attitudes of the audience.

The persuasive message that Barack Obama shared was effective. This aspect is true since he ensured that his arguments were backed by history that every American could relate to. For example, he mentions the oath’s necessity before assuming office as a sign of faithfulness to the forebearers’ ideals. The mentioning of the oath indicates the factual perspective that Barack Obama included in his speech. Thus, it is prudent to assume that the speech was effective in communicating t the people gathered for his inauguration.

Furthermore, he mentions challenges facing Americans and states that they are serious and require substantial time to conclude. These are facts that every American can relate to. Hence, his speech was persuasive since it allowed him to change the attitudes of the audience.

In summary, the inauguration speech made by Barack Obama was persuasive in all aspects. The use of the central route to persuasion allowed him to reach his audience with the intended message. Notably, the speech fulfilled the requirements of the audience, processing, and the result. Also, the use of facts allowed the speech to be persuasive and effective. Thus, the audience changed their attitude towards various concerns raised by the speech.

I am going to talk about how George Washington or Barack Obama had a more successful presidency. I think that Barack Obama would have helped the US more than Washington because now we have more technology. Obama started a caring act called Obama Care Washington passed a lot of acts and tariffs as well. Obama also Signed $787 billion to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, to spur economic growth after the Great Depression. Washington did bring America through the American Revolution which had a total of 10 battles in it.

Barack Obama had a very good presidency as well as Washington but Obama in my opinion had a better one. Obama got America through many situations in his presidency, he made many things like Obama Care and got us through the Iraq war. A great thing Obama did was created Obama care which is a federal law intended to improve access to health insurance for US citizens. Obama Care’s official name is the Affordable Care Act or in full it is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That act was a great impact on America in my opinion and I think it helped many people.

Obama also ordered the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden which helped America in a great way because Bin Laden was the head of a terrorist organization which could’ve been bad if Obama didn’t do something because he could have caused another huge attack behind our back and could’ve killed many people. Another thing Obama did that helped America greatly is he dropped the veteran homeless rate by 50% which is great because there are a lot of homeless veterans who can’t get a job once they come back from the war which leaves them homeless and with no money. Obama did many great things but so did Washington and that is what we are going to talk about these are a couple of great things that Washington did in his presidency. One thing that Washington did was move the United States Capital from New York to Philadelphia where it is still now. Washington also passed many laws and one of them was the Copyright law he signed this law on 05/31/1790. This law in my opinion was a great law because it still has an effect on life now and if it were not a thing many issues would be happening between companies and other businesses. This, in my opinion, is probably one of the greatest things that Washington did during his presidency, Washington ratified the Constitution on 05/29/1790 which means Rhode Island ratifies the Constitution becoming the last of the original thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation to join the newly formed Union.

As well as here Ratifying the Constitution and passing the Copyright law and moving Capital Washington signed a bill into law that directed the federal government to assume the Revolutionary War debts of the states. Which is a great thing because it shows that America didn’t need Britain to take care of their debts they as a country could do it themselves. One more thing that Washington did great in his presidency is he passes the United States’ first naturalization law, establishing terms of citizenship.

As you saw Washington did many great things but here are some more things that Obama did that in my opinion make him the better president. Obama increased the Department of Veteran Affairs funding which was a big deal because like I said in body paragraph 1 many veterans go poor after coming back from war because no one will accept them in any jobs because of what they did in the war which is not fair. Obama also Improved school nutrition with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act this act helped a lot of kids with their healthy eating and some kids’ nutrients because not all kids get much food at home which helps them be healthier. Also, schools didn’t always give healthy food like ice cream, and sugary foods.

Obama also Supported veterans through a $78 billion tuition assistance GI bill. This was a great impact on America because like I said in body paragraph one many veterans can’t get jobs because many people don’t let veterans work for them and that leaves them with no money so they can’t afford to go to college so that is what Obama did, he paid for veterans tuition. Proof that he was a great president was shown in 2009 when he Won the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” that in my opinion shows that he was a great president and that he helped many people and had a successful presidency.

George Washington did many great things as a president but he did as well as all the other presidents did some bad things in his presidency. For instance, he was a president when slaves were a thing and he made a fortune off of slaves and whiskey products which at the time wasn’t a bad thing because owning slaves was legal, but now it looks bad that all people are equal. George Washington was the first person to own a slave therefore it made it ok for everyone else to own one as well, by the time Washington died he owned approximately 316 slaves in all. While George Washington was a president he got in many battles as a country but he lost more than he won as a president.

Barack Obama as well as George Washington has been in many wars.

In fact Obama’s whole entire presidency was ongoing of wars and he successfully got us through many of those wars. Washington on the other hand lost more wars than he won.

As well as Washington Obama made many successful acts that helped America in a great way and helped many people that couldn’t afford college or afford food etc. Also Barack as a president made his own act to help people with not a lot of money to be able to afford food and things they need like college money or money for their kids school, groceries, etc. So overall I think whatever George Washington did Barack Obama did better.

So over all I think that Barack Obama was a better president than Washington there was many reasons I stated that I think are valued and state a good reason why Obama over all is the better president. You can see all those facts in the previous paragraphs that show you how great of a president both of these presidents were but for the most part, you can tell how Obama just had better things he did in his presidency so I hope you think the same thank you for taking your time to read my summary.

On March 23rd, President Obama signed into law The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as the ACA, or colloquially as Obamacare. Obama, and his staffers, had feared failure on multiple occasions (Obama, 2020), and when it comes to promoting their legislative agenda, the question has always been whether a president can get lawmakers to accept something they would not originally pass (Beckmann, 2008. pg. 407). Despite this, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats defied the odds and ushered in a new era in American health politics (Oberlander, 2010. pg. 1112).

The strategic problem for all presidents is that their power is inherently limited. It always has and will be limited, because the fragmentation of the institutions of government severely restricts their ability to determine the passage of legislation and the implementation of policy. The ‘genetic code’ of the constitution cannot be escaped (Bowels, 1987. pg. 2). Obama, a President who had promised to end the gridlock within the halls of Congress, ran headfirst into this ‘genetic code’.

Attempts at reforming the US health system have an established record of losing, and in 2009 there were plenty of reasons to believe they would fail again. In 2009, Obama inherited a polarised political environment, soaring budget deficits, an economy on the verge of a second great depression, along with a myriad of smaller challenges, all of which stood in the way of reform (Oberlander, 2010. pg.1112). The state of the nation and the world, the expectations of the public, and partisan control of government are among the many environmental factors that help define parameters for policy-making and that shape presidential-congressional relations (Shull, 1997. pg. 6).

Obama embarked on an ambitious legislative push to reform the American healthcare system. Both the politics and the substance of health care are complicated. Yet, Obama was determined to change the injustices of the American Healthcare system. Spurred on by his mentor, Teddy Kennedy, a Democratic Senator who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, Obama and his team began to map out their legislative strategy, beginning with a headcount (Obama, 2020).

Despite the fact that Obama had come into office with large Democratic majorities in Congress, these were nothing like the majorities that Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson enjoyed when Congress passed Social Security and Medicare. The 111th US Congress closely resembled the 103rd Congress or the one that killed President Clinton’s efforts to reform health care in 1993-1994. Obama’s greatest challenge would be ensuring the passage of ambitious healthcare legislation, similar in size and scope to the Great Society and New Deal programs, without the advantage of the large congressional majorities of those eras (Oberlander, 2010. pg. 1112-1113).

Richard Neustadt realized the limitations of presidential influence, and asserts convincingly that the essence of the president’s political leadership over Congress is his ability to persuade; “All presidents wish they could make Congress serve them as a rubber-stamp, converting their agendas into prompt enactments, and most presidents will try to bring that miracle about, whenever and as best they can” (Neustadt, 1973. pg. 136).

However, the democratic head count was incredibly flimsy, especially in the Senate, with ailing Senators, such as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, along with several conservative Democrats, such as Ben Nelson and Joe Liberman. These routes all provided a manner in which the crucial sixtieth, and filibuster-proof, the vote could be lost (Obama, 2020).

Obama and his team knew that passing something as controversial as health-care reform, via solely partisan votes, would make the law vulnerable down the line. Therefore, the President and his legislative advisers attempted to fashion their scheme in a way that had a chance of garnering some Republican votes (Obama, 2020).

These attempts to reach out across the aisle, whilst initially promising, were ultimately fruitless, as Republicans gradually abandoned all pretense of wanting to negotiate. This darkened the mood at the White House, which was further darkened by a series of increasingly dire poll numbers (Obama, 2020).

Obama decided he would spend the first two weeks of August 2009 holding various town halls in states such as Montana and Colorado, where support for health reform was weakest (Obama, 2020). The country was now in the middle of what was daubed as the “Tea Party Summer”, which was an organized effort to espouse many people’s fears regarding healthcare reform, with a right-wing political agenda. Heading to and from every town hall, Obama was greeted by dozens of angry protesters. One thing was certain; a large portion of the American people did not trust the words of Obama, or of Democratic lawmakers (Obama, 2020).

The majority of presidential legislative proposals face problems, sometimes insurmountable ones. As aforementioned, presidential power always has, and always will be, limited due to the fragmentation of the different branches of government. According to Neustadt, however, the impact of the president on legislation depends on; “The measure of the man. His strength or weakness, then, turns on his personal capacity to influence the conduct of the men who make up the government” (Neustadt, 1960. pg.4).

Knowing that they had to try something substantial to reset and re-energize the contentious healthcare debate, David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, suggested that Obama deliver an address before a special joint session of Congress, a high-stakes roll of the dice, that had only been used twice in the past sixteen years (Obama, 2020). On the 9th of September, Obama delivered this address, and according to polling data, it increased the public’s support for the healthcare bill. Even more important for the President’s agenda, it seemed to stiffen wavering congressional Democrats (Obama, 2020).

From the very start of the health-care debate, those on the left had pushed for a modification of the Massachusetts model, first coined by the Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. This was the so-called “Public-option”, and it was hoped that it would lay the groundwork for a single-payer system. It was an intelligent idea and had garnered enough signatories that Nancy Pelosi included it in the House Bill (Obama, 2020).

Speaker Pelosi engineered the quick passage of the House bill in the face of huge opposition from the Republicans. If the Senate could pass a similar version before Christmas, January could then be used to negotiate the differences and work out the fine detail (Obama, 2020).

However, in the Senate, there were nowhere near sixty votes for the public option. Obama and his team thought of a possible compromise – by offering the public option in the parts of the country where the entry of a public insurer system could help drive down the overall price of insurance (Obama, 2020).

However, this was still too much for the more conservative elements of the Democratic Senate caucus to endure. Various Senators, such as Joe Liberman, announced they would not vote for a package containing a public option, under any circumstances. The Nebraskan Senator, Ben Nelson, was also wavering (Obama, 2020). The Democrats could not afford to lose a single vote in the Senate. The vote of every Democratic Senator would be pivotal to the eventual outcome. Nelson wanted to ensure that the final version of the law prohibited the use of public funds for abortions (Nelson, 2009).

These crucial votes were only won after the public option was excluded from the Senate’s bill, and after the motion was changed to allow states to opt-out of insurance exchange plans to provide abortion coverage. In December 2009, after twenty-four days of debate, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – with exactly sixty votes (Obama, 2020). The Senate bill would now head to the House for reconciliation.

However, the Democrat’s plans were scuppered by the special election in Massachusetts, where the Republicans won the traditionally Democratic Senate seat. This victory was significant because of its effect on the Democrats in Congress. The Republican victory was a humiliation for the Democrats, and humiliation made many Democrats in Congress concerned about the political cost of healthcare reform. Moreover, the election meant that Democrats could no longer break a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

The original Democratic plan was to negotiate changes during a conference committee in January 2010, before passing a final bill (Obama, 2020). However, since any change would now have to pass over a Republican filibuster in the Senate, House Democrats would now have to pass the Senate’s bill. As most of the House Democrats’ concerns were budgetary, and thus, these concerns were addressed via the reconciliation process (Chait, 2010).

The last hurdle for Obamacare was a critical group of pro-life House Democrats, led by Bart Stupak. Their concerns could not be addressed via the reconciliation process, like the majority of other members, as the group’s concerns regarding the possibility of federal funding for abortion, are not a budgetary issue. To resolve this sticking point, Obama issued Executive Order 13535, which re-affirmed the principles of the Hyde Amendment, winning over the wavering Democrats and assuring the bill’s passage (Chait, 2010). The House duly passed the Senate’s Bill on the 21st March 2010, with a vote of 219-212. A mere two days later, Obama signed the ACA into law.

The Congressional Democrats defied the odds, and the enactment of the ACA marked a new chapter in American health politics. Moreover, this was a victory for Obama, it cemented his legacy and was one of the crowning achievements of his presidency. The final bill may not have been what Obama had wanted, but like Presidents before him, he had exhausted every locker in the presidential armory to get the ACA over the line. Neustadt states that the impact of the president on legislation “depends on the measure of the man…” (Neustadt, 1960. pg. 4). Obama’s measure was tested during the bitter battle over health care, and the result was a historic piece of legislation that, given the constraints imposed by both the U.S. political and health systems, is probably as good as it gets (Oberlander, 2010).

Bibliography:

1. Beckmann, M., (2008), The President’s Playbook: White House strategies for lobbying Congress. In; The Journal of Politics, Vol 70, pp. 407-419. [Online] Accessed on 26102020. Available from: https:www.jstor.orgstablepdf10.1017s0022381608080390.pdfrefreqid=excelsior:20cbf84e8c97e56b2d1e43254c0b80c7.

Was Obama a Hero in Fighting Racism?

Barack Obama’s presidential election was significant in marking a change in the nature of attitudes and beliefs regarding race in American society. As the first African-American president, the build-up to his campaign was crucial as it enforced many to evaluate pressing issues regarding race and unequal opportunities amongst minorities. His election was important in increasing voter turnout from minorities and encouraged individuals to question their own identities, bringing them closer to politics. For many, Obama’s emergence symbolized optimism, highlighting America’s progression into a representative society. It also stressed that America was diverging and breaking away from its racist and segregated past, which had long clouded the nation’s history. This essay will explore how Obama’s victory did indeed signal the beginning of post-racialism, focussing on how it increased diverse representation and resulted in popular support to redefine the meaning of ‘race.’ However, it is important to note other arguments such as conservative commentators who emphasize that prior to Obama, society had already moved beyond race, indicating that there is a strong divide amongst people in regards to at which point in history society entered post-racialism.

Obama’s ‘outsider’ status was hugely important in demonstrating that America was overcoming the racial divide, especially within the political arena. One of the reasons why this was a turning point in American history was because it traditionally broke the precedents of what characteristics defined a president. What was most appealing about Obama was that he was one of the first black men, since Jesse Jackson’s presidential bid in the 1980s to run for the presidency. Unlike Clinton, many were captivated by what Obama represented. For instance, he was the son of an immigrant, who was an absent figure throughout his life and he struggled much with his biracial identity, a story which closely resonated amongst many members of the black community. Once settling in America to pursue further education, Obama notes ‘I was trying to raise myself as a black man in America .’ We can infer that Obama had trouble finding a place within a predominantly white society as simply just a black man, highlighting that racism and discrimination were deeply ingrained within American culture. He emphasizes that he ‘learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, ’ in order to overcome racial challenges, giving us an insight that he never found a sense of belonging to either the black or white community. His early exposure to racial divides sheds light on the fact that despite moving past the Civil Rights era, progressive change was still required to deconstruct people’s attitudes towards minority groups. It was through his ‘outsider’ status in he was able to consolidate presidential power, securing popular support amongst those who connected with his identity struggle. Obama’s presidential election symbolized that America was transitioning into a post-racial society, crucially evoking a conversation about race, which had in the past become marginalized and of little relevance to former presidents. His election victory demonstrated that he was living proof that racial boundaries were gradually deconstructing. Yet, this is not to say that his image did not raise controversy. Multiple times he was attacked for his affiliation with the Nation of Islam’s leader, Louis Farrakhan, and was accused of being a Muslim due to his ‘funny sounding name,’ ‘Hussein’. Clinton used this as leverage and tried exploiting Obama during a convention, asking him to ‘reject’ and ‘denounce’ Farrakhan’s endorsement, which he inevitably did. Hence, despite claims that America had transcended beyond race, Obama’s public scrutiny suggested that there was still anxiety over this matter.

Obama limited his discussions on race and adopted a ‘priceless’ identity throughout his campaign to be pluralistic in nature. This implied that he wasn’t simply electioneering as president for African-Americans but as president of the whole nation. Obama isolated the race issue except when held liable by the media in controversies such as the Jeremiah Wright scandal. Wright, in an edited sermon, argued that the foundations of the US were built upon slavery and racism. He reflected his unpatriotic attitudes by stating ‘God damn America by treating our citizens less than human. ’ For Obama who had close ties to Wright and his church, the scandal resulted in many doubting Obama’s electabilities in fear that he may share these same views. However, in reality, Wright was trying to educate African-Americans on the history of slavery and criticize the minority of blacks who were siding with Clinton, who represented the white, privileged class. Wright tried to galvanize support for Obama’s campaign by uniting African-Americans to abandon the belief that Obama was ‘not fully black’ due to his biracial heritage. Nevertheless, Wright’s attack was significant because it led to one of the most important speeches in history – A Perfect Union. This was perhaps the first time Obama publicly addressed the race issue. He declared that ‘we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.’ We can infer that Obama acknowledged how racism in the past hadn’t withered away but instead continued to manifest in the present. Obama went on to mention how federal legislation in the past purposely excluded black people from gaining equal pay and opportunities to their counterparts. This conveyed that the very institution, established to protect all citizens, contributed to sabotaging equality based on skin color. Obama utilized the Wright scandal as an opportunity to talk of America’s violent history, emphasizing that it was still embedded within society. As William argues, this speech set a reminder that there was a generational division between people like Reverend Wright, who claimed there was still a lack of racial advancement, and people like Obama, ‘who benefited from the advances made by the previous generation. Yet according to Pew research polls, only 51% of the African-American community believed Obama handled the issue of the race well. For many, this speech was important because it reaffirmed Obama’s ‘blackness,’ validating their beliefs that he was initially ‘one of them.’ However, not all blacks shared this particular optimistic view as some criticized that Obama had ‘failed to connect the sins of the past to the crimes of the present, when racism thrives ’, conveying that there was a wide disappointment as he made no mention of how his administration would overcome the racial injustice. Ergo, it is apparent that in spite of his election as the first black president, his race was overlooked much throughout his campaign, which is surprising given that it was his race that played a vital role in his election.

Conservative commentators have repeatedly stressed that America has moved beyond the issue of race, prior to Obama’s emergence. The color-blind racial theory highlights that race no longer seems to play an important role in one’s ability to achieve success. They suggest that the movement towards a post-racial society transpired the moment minorities were guaranteed entrenched rights following the brutal and prolonged Civil Rights campaign. With the passage of the Civil rights Act in 1964, under Johnson, conservatives indicate that minorities saw their position in society strengthen, as the government was forced to recognize their rights and citizenship. Thus, this was a turning point in American history because it showed signs of assimilation. More importantly, crucial measures were taken to safeguard minorities since the deconstruction of Jim Crow laws. Therefore, since then they argue that it should come as no surprise that Obama was able to break through the political arena as an African-American candidate as society had clearly evolved into post-racial times. They emphasize that to accept that American culture has not progressed into a post-racial society is virtually a myth. This is because there have been huge advancements to give equal opportunities to minorities some of which currently still are in practice, such as affirmative action. It is apparent that Obama himself clearly affiliated himself with the view that society had transpired beyond race by making statements such as ‘we have arrived at a ‘post-racial society ’ and that ‘we already live in a color-blind society. ’ This conveyed that he aligned himself with the color-blind theory and used a race-neutral approach to be inclusive of all groups. Yet for many, his election victory was merely an illusion, which was symbolic of post-racialism rather than it actually manifesting in practice. This was seen through the rise of police brutality and systematic racism that was experienced by mainly African-Americans, which had inevitably seen the establishment of groups such as Black Lives Matter emerge. With individuals feeling disenchanted with Obama, he faced widespread criticism that he was not doing enough to tackle the issue and hence many grew weary, taking control into their own hands. Ergo, a post-racial society under Obama was not achieved with the upsurge of institutionalized racism, which is still prominent in the US even today.

However, it is important to note that race wasn’t the main factor that led to Obama’s success. For example, by 2008 the US economy was suffering with the government shutdown as a result of the financial crash. This had mainly affected minorities of the working class who experienced hardship, as they were unable to work. It was through Obama’s strong message of hope and change, as well as promises to stimulate the economy, which had increased his support amongst the many. Secondly, Obama was only able to obtain his position through the failures of the Bush administration, which led to a disastrous foreign policy and made him more unpopular than before. Unlike Clinton, who had supported Bush’s War on Terror, Obama was not so tolerant of Bush’s policies. He believed that it further drained government finances through military funding and shaped America’s image in the long term as an aggressor. With wide public disillusionment on the handling of domestic issues, the majority of the population felt isolated, thus turning to Obama’s charismatic and strategic policies. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Republican’s lack of appeal was also vital in building Obama’s platform and increasing momentum. With McCain securing the Republican front-runner status, he chose Palin as his running mate. Palin’s inexperience and inconsistent comments had many anxious over America’s future, giving the Republican party a weak appearance. This was perhaps one of the biggest factors which persuaded people to vote for the Democrats as alternatively, they believed they had no real option. Therefore by 2008, Obama secured his victory by winning 52% of the popular vote, suggesting that race was not the only reason for Obama’s victory.

The widening racial disparities amongst races show that American society still lacks equality. Despite Obama shaping congress to be more racially diverse, with the appointment of minorities into his cabinet, it does not overlook the domestic social inequalities that were present on a more local basis. As quoted ‘The most persistent manifestation of racial inequality in the modern United States has been racial segregation in housing and education. ’ The lack of opportunities for minorities have been marginalized to low-income jobs, leading to them being unable to raise their standards of living, in comparison to the white middle-class, who are generally well off in these areas. Here, we are able to see that race and class slowly begin to intersect showing the level of complexity. With socio-economic conditions and demographics playing a vital role in this, minorities who live in poorer crime-ridden neighborhoods are unable to experience the same prosperity. For example, nationally a third of black men are either incarcerated, awaiting parole, or on probation, suggesting they are unable to break this cycle and that the nature of racial progress has been slow. Moreover, in fields like education, evidence suggests that 70% of children attend racially segregated schools, indicating that regardless of living in contemporary times, there are areas in society still mirroring the past, needing filtration. Despite securing strong support from minorities during his first term, the lack of intervention on racial issues under the Obama administration saw many withdraw their endorsement, as they still lagged behind their white counterparts. In spite of Obama being America’s first black president, society has not fully evolved into post-racial times as there have been clear gaps both on a race and class basis, showing that his victory did not necessarily lead to a greater outcome.

In conclusion, Obama’s election campaign did to a minimal degree display that society had well transitioned past race. His legacy of being the first black president in history marked a turning point for minorities and mainly the African-American sect because it manifested that America had entered a new period of racial acceptance. He focussed on uniting all groups together rather than one community alone, reinforcing his message that ‘there is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asia America – there’s the United States of America ’. However, as examined it was the disastrous economic decline and Bush’s catastrophic handling of war that also played a prominent role in Obama’s victory. His campaign was structured more on kickstarting and rebooting the economy than on race, which despite facing criticism, he was still able to address on rare occasions. Moreover, it is vital to remember that equally, Obama’s election had seen a resurgence of the right develop conveying that racism is still prominent.

What is Obama care?

Ok, now we are on Obama healthcare so almost everyone living in the United States has heard of something called Obama healthcare. But not everyone has a clear understanding of what Obama care is and what it does for families that are living in the United States. Most people probably only know Obama care as “The Affordable Care Act” that is put into act specifically focusing on reforming the “National Healthcare System”. But as most people like me before writing this I knew it as Obama care it was signed on the date March 23, 2017, by Barack Obama himself. Obama, a goal he wanted to accomplish was to reduce the amount of money an average US citizen family was paying that required everyone to have health insurance or to pay a tax penalty.

Obamacare Taxes Penalties.

The “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) was designed for people without health insurance. In the year 2017, “The TrumpCare” passed a tax bill canceling the individual demand. The separate demand was a part of Obama Care healthcare better and improved, which required most people to have health insurance or if not they will face a file. I believe this isn’t really if you’re at or alarm because it’s like you have to pay crew either way whether if you’re not paying potential it or if you’re paying for it. This act stayed in effect so the year 2018 which was last year so that forced people to be covered with some kind of health insurance unless they wanted to be charged a large fine. For people in a lower amount of income, may qualify for “Obama care subsidies”, and these plans were made to make insurance cheaper and affordable for families living in the U.S who couldn’t afford expensive health insurance.

Obamacare Healthcare Pro.

Most Americans can now have affordable healthcare now. (20 million citizens can get health insurance coverage, and most of these people that have health insurance are young adults.)

Makes healthcare care more affordable for people who have low income. (Now most healthcare companies are required to spend at least 80% of their income on improving medical care for their clients.)

Limitless care time. (Basically, people who have chronic diseases or conditions “ran out” of money to treat the conditions, because the insurance company gave their clients a set time limit on how much money they can spend on an individual).

Lower drug cost. (Obamacare promised people to make prescription drugs cheaper and affordable for patients, but mostly for senior citizens who can’t afford most of their medication. This makes a lot of sense seeing that the older you get, you have a high risk of being exposed to certain sicknesses, diseases or conditions.)

More screenings are covered. (The Obama healthcare covers screening and preventive services. For example. Breast cancer screening and early treatments can help detect early signs to avoid any unnecessary costly and debilitating treatments. That also means less money is being used and can be used for something more important. )“The ACA is going to help all Americans have higher quality and less costly healthcare in the decades to come,” Dr.Christopher Lillis.

Obamacare Healthcare Con.

Increased premium cost. (Well since insurance companies are being forced to cover all the classes of the individual’s pre-existing conditions and also provide a huge range of benefits, people are now being forced to pay higher or more for health insurance.)

Signing up can be tricky. (When Obama care was first launched it had numerous complications which made it difficult to sign up for. They fix the problem but people were still complaining that the process was way too long and the process was tricky. They then fixed the problem but people were still complaining that the process was way too long and complicated and signing up for the right plan was also tricky for them.)

Conclusion

So writing this essay made me an eye opener in life. Before writing the topic I didn’t know what I wanted to write but I knew I wanted it to be about medicine since that’s my dream job that I want to pursue. so I figured why not do healthcare since you don’t know anything much about it, I love learning new things, especially things that interest me such as anything in the medical field. My dream job is to pursue a career in Surgical Tech or Nursing either one. So I kinda knew everything that I had to know about nursing and school and stuff but not healthcare. So digging up all this information was really interesting to me. I structure my essay as subtitles and ask questions then I answer them in about 1-2 paragraphs explaining and answering the question. I also felt like this is an eye opener because before this all I knew was healthcare was expensive and I never thought to look into it and ask why. But it can also help me when I turned 18 and I move out I will know the “dos and don’ts” when it comes to healthcare insurance. I know most schools don’t teach you about things like this but it’s up to us if we are willing and interested to go do our research and I’m glad I chose this topic.

The two speeches being compared in this paper are that of President Barack Obama released on January 21, 2013, and President Jimmy Carter released on January 20, 1977. Obama served as the 44th president of the United States (US) from the year 2009 to 2017 while Carter served as the 39th president of the United States from 1977 to 1981. This paper delves into both speeches, comparing how the two former US presidents implemented different literary techniques to influence change.

At first glance, I find Carter’s speech quite honest and very straightforward. It is evident that the speaker understands very well what appeals to his audiences and he delivers it in a charming way. Carter’s speech is also full of words that are really inspiring. However, I feel that the speech lacks some spark that can effectively generate excitement or move the audience. As an eloquent speaker, it is my perception that the speech is deprived of some charisma and strength that the audience craves to enable them to envision what the speaker intends. In Obama’s inaugural address, I find a speaker who is concise and owns his words in addition to being aware of what is required to work an audience. Just like Carter’s speech, Obama delivers his speech in one of the most compelling and inspiring ways. Quintessentially, there exist a plethora of rhetorical strategies that are typical of the two inaugural speeches. Some of the rhetorical devices that are implemented by the two speakers are anaphora, germinatio, anadiplosis, antitheton, and antithesis,

In the opening paragraph of the two speeches, there exists a considerable difference. Usually, a compelling speech is characterized by a flamboyant and attention-grabbing opening. Essentially, an ideal speech often begins with a story, a fact or a quote. From my own point of view, I find Jimmy Carter’s opening paragraph quite compelling, however, not as enthralling as the opening by Barack Obama. Carter commences his inaugural address by stating “For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.” It is really good to acknowledge your predecessor’s work, more so if you are not an incumbent, and I believe Carter gets it right at this point. In the next few lines, he recognizes the strength of the nation he is just about to serve and adds some story to the speech about his experiences as a high school student—“As my high school teacher, Miss Julia Coleman, used to say…” The story here is vital in capturing the attention of the audience. Rather than wasting his audience’s time with unnecessary small talk and blunt jokes, he offers a brief story that matches his thesis portraying a convincing message to the audience and hence captivating them. The closing paragraph was however somewhat unsatisfactory. Unless the audience is very attentive, the speech rarely calls for the attention of the audience to its close. The statement “These are not just my goals, and they will not be my accomplishments, but the affirmation of our Nation’s continuing moral strength and our belief in an undiminished, ever-expanding American dream,” though very impressive in the context within which it is drafted, does not openly announce to the reader that the speaker is finalizing his speech.

President Obama, in his inaugural speech, prefers to commence by stating a fact rather than narrating a story. I find his rationale in constitutional law terms as one of the most effective ways to draw the attention of the audience. At the beginning of the speech, he states that “Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution.” In this sentence, the author not only attracts the attention of the reader but also highlights the main talking point which is the inauguration. He presents it in one of the most compelling ways which isn’t typical of any speech I have come across. Furthermore, he uses his constitutional prowess to rally the audience to his speech as well as remind them of their civic duty which is enshrined in the constitution. His impeccable comprehension of the constitution, as can be attested in the opening, help immensely in establishing and solidifying his credibility. The concept of credibility in this scenario encompasses how a speaker is perceived by his audience. No matter how competent, trustworthy a speaker may be, if he/she is not perceived as credible by the audience then his expertise and passion inadvertently go to waste. Obama’s introductory paragraph also features plenty of anaphora which I find vital in making the speech more memorable. With regards to anaphora, certain words or phrases are repeated at the beginning of sentences or successive clauses. In Obama’s first few opening lines, the word we are repeatedly used at the beginning of sentences to make the introductory part more memorable—’ Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that…” The conclusory remarks at the end of Obama’s speech are also effective in calling for the attention of the audience to the close of the speech. The author implements creative thinking and a compelling delivery to end his speech at a high climax. He states “Thank you. God bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.” This is an ideal way to end a speech with regards to the audience.

Within the body paragraphs of the two speeches, a number of literary techniques are apparent. In Carter’s speech, there is the use of germinatio to add rhythm and cadence to the speech, emphasize on central ideas in the speech, and to build the speech’s intensity to a climax. Germinatio refers to a figure of speech where words or groups of words are repeated within the same sentence. In Carter’s speech, the word ‘a new’ in paragraph four is repeated in every clause of the sentence. The author says that ‘This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our Government, and a new spirit among us all.” In Obama’s inaugural speech, germinatio is used in the first paragraph of the speech. Here, the author repeatedly uses the word ‘that’ at the beginning of every clause in the sentence. He says ‘…that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Besides germinatio, there is also the use of anadiplosis in the two speeches. Anadiplosis refers to a figure of speech where words or groups of words situated at the end of one clause or sentence is repeated near the beginning of the succeeding sentence or clause. In paragraph fifteen of Carter’s speech, the phrase ‘be true’ is repeated near the beginning of the succeeding clause. The author says that ‘To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others.” In Obama’s speech, the word ‘together’ situated at the end of the fourth paragraph is used at the beginning of the next sentence. The speech reads, “We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together. Together…”

Finally, the two speeches make use of antitheton. Antitheton refers to a literary device used to contrasts thoughts where contraries are set in opposition to each other. In paragraph twenty of Carter’s speech, the author creates a contrast between idealism and weakness when he says that ‘We are a purely idealistic Nation, but let no one confuse our idealism with weakness.’ In Obama’s speech, the use of antithesis is preferred over antitheton. Antithesis differs from antitheton in the sense that it encompasses contrasting of two ideas presented in opposition to one another. For instance, in paragraph eighteen of the speech, the author says that ‘not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

In conclusion, the two speeches made by the former US presidents are very impressive. The speeches implement a concoction of rhetorical devices including anaphora, germinatio, anadiplosis, antitheton, and antithesis. Some of these devices are used in the speeches to add rhythm while others are used to add cadence and to further emphasize on central ideas within the speech. There are literary devices that are also used to build the speech’s intensity to a climax. Based on the comparison made between President Barack Obama’s speech and President Jimmy Carter’s, I find Obama’s speech more appealing particularly the introductory and conclusion parts.

Works Cited

1. “Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama”. The White House, 21 January 2013, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama.
2. “Inaugural Address of President Jimmy Carter.” The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum, 20 January 1977, https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/assets/documents/speeches/inaugadd.phtml.

One of the main similarities between the two inaugural speeches is the use of emotional appeal. Emotional appeal is one of the most effective persuasive techniques as the viewers give off an emotional response before logically thinking about what the speaker says. Trump and Obama use this technique throughout their speeches by using patriotism to appeal to American citizens.

To begin with, Trump refers to past presidents, thanking them for their work as presidents. He starts off his speech by thanking “Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama”. In referring to the past, Trump reminds the citizens about the hardships and successes that America has gone through. Each former president provided citizens with good memories during their time in office. Trump is hoping that it gives the American citizens a nostalgic feeling about all the good that these presidents have done for them assuring that the trend will continue with his presidency. Furthermore, Trump emphasizes his thoughts about America’s power over the world. Trump believes America’s authority has the ability to determine the path of “the world for many, many years to come”. Ever since the World Wars, America has been one of the most powerful countries in terms of its economic status and militarism.

In reminding America’s authority, Trump is appealing to the patriotic side of the citizens. It reminds the citizens of how America has influenced the world in the past decades providing a sense of control over the world for the citizens. Lastly, Trump explains how racial differences do not affect the love for America. Whether they are “black or brown or white” citizens, they “all bleed the same red blood of patriots”. During the 2016 campaign, the most left media often portrayed Trump as a racist. To counter those thoughts, Trump becomes inclusive of people of all colors to be able to be patriotic to America. He illustrates that patriotism is not only exclusive to white Americans as it can vary. It makes colored America feel more obliged to be a part of this country as the president is accepting of them.

Obama’s inaugural speech displays a similar patriotic theme to the likes of Trump’s speech. However, Obama uses it to develop hope for a better future due to the economy at the time. Obama refers to the workers of America to exaggerate America’s perseverance. Obama describes American workers during a time when the economy was going through depression as “no less productive than when this crisis began.” With the economy at the state it was, Obama praises American workers to help them feel vindicated for their hard work; motivating each citizen to contribute their part to the economy. In doing so, Obama is referring to the unity of the citizens which establishes a strong and united country the citizens can depend on during a crisis. Obama further conveys patriotism indirectly by bringing up America’s past achievements. In an attempt to rejuvenate hope of America prospering in the future, Obama reminds doubtful citizens that “they have forgotten what this country has already done.”

Over the centuries, America’s past is enriched with many achievements and accomplishments. Obama has taken the citizens back in time where only good memories of America are being thought of, which gives them validity over their claim of America being a great country. Moving on, Obama continues his patriotism by stating the obvious truth about America. Even at downtime for Americans, America remains “the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth” according to Obama. This blunt act of patriotism only reassures the audience about their country. It aids the audience to bring back confidence in their country and it reassures them that the president knows the level of power being given to him. Both Obama and Trump’s speeches are heavily influenced by patriotism but Obama uses it to uplift citizens from the economic climate at the time.

Over the centuries there have been so many great men who have made so many great speeches. One of if not the most iconic speeches is Dr. Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Another speech that may not be as significant but still important is Senator Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’. These speeches have a lot of similarities and differences including their speech crafting devices, unique African American heritages and the importance they have, and the Christian content. These three things help to convey the central message of unity vital to each of the speeches.

One thing that both speeches shared was the careful and deliberate use of repetition. Dr. King utilized the repetition of the phrase ‘Now is the time’ to evoke a sense of urgency in those who were present at the Lincoln Memorial including those watching as it was televised. It was a time of transition in our country, where blacks were declared free from slavery but were not truly free. When Sen. Obama gave his speech in 2008, he was able to inspire the remembrance of Dr. King’s speech, saying, ‘To continue the long march of those who came before us,’ and going on to repeat the word ‘more’ in reference to the work we still have to do.

Not only did they use repetition at the beginning of their speeches, but also toward the end. To be able to provide a sense of hope and unity at the close of his speech, Dr. King emphasized that for America to be great we need to let freedom ring across our nation. Alternately before closing his speech with a personal story, Sen. Obama then repeated the phrase ‘this time’ to pull people back from all the distractions as well as conflicts political campaigns bring up and turn their focus on the real problems facing the majority of our country.

Even though both were African Americans, Dr. King and Sen. Obama had drastically different childhoods which gave them each a unique point of view in their speeches. Although both were raised in Christian households, their religious upbringings were different. Dr. King was the fourth generation of Baptist preachers and was raised in a household that was heavily dedicated to the faith. Despite being raised in a Christian home, Dr. King experienced a crisis of faith and troubling depression (Wikipedia). He eventually was able to bring his doubts to the faith he was raised in, entering the seminary and deciding to follow in his father’s footsteps. He was also raised in a time when racial segregation was very normal and racism was openly expressed. When he urged his fellows to ‘meet physical force with soul force,’ he was encouraging them to be an example that others could follow. With all he had experienced, he had come to the wisdom that to overcome evil, you must consistently be good.

Sen. Obama however, spent his former years both in the United States, with a casual Christian influence, as well as in Indonesia, where he was with a strong Muslim influence, providing him with a multicultural and very diverse perspective. He did not suffer racism to the same extent Dr. King did, except that just by being darker skinned in America, he became vulnerable to the same struggles of African Americans. But more than that, he married a black American woman who ‘carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners’ which brought that heritage into his family line and allowed him to have yet another perspective. Unlike Dr. King, Obama also had to learn to reconcile the racism uttered by his white grandmother with the knowledge that she ‘loves me as much as she loves anything in this world’. He came to understand that ‘these people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love’. Despite their wildly different upbringings, both Dr. King and Sen. Obama were able to reach the same belief and hope for unity.

Dr. King and Sen. Obama both drew on their Christian faith in their speeches. When asked if his ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech was about religion, Sen. Obama said, ‘There’s a sense that if we are to get beyond our racial divides, that it should be neat and pretty, whereas part of my argument was that it’s going to be hard and messy—and that’s where faith comes in’ (in Newsweek). Although he seemed unwilling to admit that his Christian faith heavily influenced his speech, there is one reference in particular, ‘a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people’. Sen. Obama made it clear that to serve this country in such a manner as to overcome those things that were still flawed and bring it together, he felt compelled to seek because of his faith in God.

Dr. King was far bolder in his use of faith in his speech. We are all God’s children is the theme of Dr. King’s speech. He rightfully saw slavery and the continued segregation of human beings to be an insult to God’s will for mankind and expressed hope to be able to see ‘the glory of the Lord … revealed’ to all people together. Faith was so important that he concluded his speech with the ‘old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, we are free at last!’’.

The purpose of both speeches was to bring together people of all colors, to drive out hatred and prejudice, and to encourage every person to work together so that our country could be a better place. ‘With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood,’ Dr. King said in his famous speech. That dream was not yet completely realized when Sen. Obama spoke in 2008, but he did give an admission of progress. ‘This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected’.

Though their speeches were forty-five years apart and under very different circumstances, these points display how they both chose to utilize repetition and even aspects from their backgrounds and faith to create speeches that delivered a message of hope and unity. Dr. King, a black man who endowed a world that had not yet fully overcome discrimination and slavery, and Obama, the son of a black man and a white woman, who was raised in a world where diversity was spread all around, both communicated the same message in different times and with different words.

Works Cited

1. Miller, Lisa ‘Cover Story: Barack Obama’s Christian Journey.’ Newsweek. 11 July 2008. https://www.newsweek.com/cover-story-barack-obamas-christian-journey-92611 Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.
2. Obama, Barack ‘A More Perfect Union.’ Constitution Center, Philadelphia. 18 Mar. 2008. National Public Radio. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.