Category: Barack Obama

Introduction

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, delivered numerous powerful speeches during his presidency. One speech that resonated deeply with the nation was his address following the tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In this rhetorical essay, we will analyze Obama’s school shooting speech to understand the effective use of rhetorical strategies, emotional appeals, and persuasive language employed to address the devastating incident and call for action on gun control.

Establishing Ethos and Pathos

From the outset, Obama establishes his ethos as a compassionate leader deeply affected by the tragedy. He expresses genuine empathy and compassion for the victims, their families, and the community, connecting on a personal level with the audience. By doing so, he establishes a bond of trust and credibility, enabling him to effectively convey his message.

Obama’s use of pathos is evident throughout the speech. He employs emotional appeals to elicit strong emotional responses from the audience. By sharing the individual stories of the victims, emphasizing the innocence of the children, and evoking feelings of grief and loss, he taps into the collective sense of sadness and anger felt by the nation. This emotional appeal serves to heighten the urgency and importance of the issue at hand.

Employing Logos and Reasoning

Obama employs logos and reasoning to present a strong and rational argument in favor of stricter gun control measures. He presents statistical evidence of the prevalence of gun violence and mass shootings in the United States, highlighting the need for immediate action. Through logical reasoning, he argues that preventing such tragedies requires a comprehensive approach that includes gun safety measures, mental health resources, and stricter background checks.

The effective use of logos is further enhanced by Obama’s appeal to common sense and shared values. He emphasizes the notion that preventing future tragedies is not a partisan issue but a moral imperative that transcends political divisions. By framing the issue as a matter of protecting our children and communities, he taps into the audience’s shared sense of responsibility and duty.

Utilizing Persuasive Language

Obama’s skillful use of persuasive language is a prominent feature of the speech. He employs powerful and vivid imagery to convey the magnitude of the tragedy and the urgency for change. Phrases such as “a classroom full of children…gunned down in a place that should be a sanctuary” and “we can’t tolerate this anymore” evoke strong emotions and elicit a call to action.

The president also utilizes repetition strategically to emphasize key points and to create a memorable impact. The repetition of the phrase “we can’t” throughout the speech serves as a rhetorical device that underscores the need for collective action and societal change. It reinforces the idea that the current state of gun violence is unacceptable and must be addressed immediately.

Conclusion

Obama’s school shooting speech stands as a poignant example of effective rhetoric. Through his adept use of ethos, pathos, logos, and persuasive language, he effectively addresses the tragedy and advocates for change. By establishing a connection with the audience, appealing to their emotions, presenting logical arguments, and utilizing persuasive language, Obama successfully calls for action on gun control while honoring the victims and their families.

The speech serves as a testament to the power of rhetoric in conveying a message, inspiring change, and uniting a nation in the face of tragedy. It stands as a reminder that effective communication, grounded in compassion, reason, and persuasive language, can serve as a catalyst for social and political transformation.

It has been a common belief that President Obama is the one who saved the American auto markets putting it back on its feet by taking decisive and quick action. This opinion may be questioned by skeptics, who claim that the other party made its contribution, but one thing is certain: the industry that appeared as a result of Obama’s actions became more profitable, efficient, and competitive (McNulty and Wisner 20).

In 2008, the whole American automobile industry was on the verge of extinction: almost 250,000 employees working in the field were laid off while the prices for gas were increasing. Between 2008 and 2010, car manufacturers, who did not manage to come up with an effective solution to the problem, we’re forced to close 16 plants. More closures were scheduled for the years to follow. Moreover, car producers had to cut off their connections with more than 2,500 dealerships. Retired workers of the industry were denied their health care insurance – this obligation was passed to an independent trust fund. As a result of all the failure, such industry giants as General Motors and Chrysler were unable to pay their bills, and to avoid a collapse had to plead for the government’s help (McNulty and Wisner 20).

Some people might say that President Obama helped tremendously in the bailout of General Motors. The federal government took over GM and Chrysler in March of 2009. GM CEO Rick Wagoner was fired and required Chrysler to merge with Italy’s Fiat Company. Obama’s Administration took advantage of the take-over. It set a new auto efficiency standards to force the companies to be more competitive against Japanese and German Companies. The reason why the Obama Administration took over General Motors was that in 2008 GM was in desperate need for money and the company was paying too much out the GM Legacy, which is pension packages being paid to retired GM employees, but the problem arose why the people high up in the company didn’t take pay cuts.

The Bailout started in 2008, when General Motors asked the government, practically Congress, for a 50 Billion dollar loan to help them avoid going under and lose thousands and thousands of jobs. Ford, on the other hand, was not looking for a loan from the government. At first, Congress refused the request and told the automakers to refine and fine-tune their request for the loan. Senate Leader Harry Reid, a supporter for the automakers, said the Big 3 (General Motors, GMAC, and Chrysler) should return “…present a responsible plan that gives us a realistic chance to get the needed votes”. When all the CEOs came to Washington D.C. to talk over the deal with a lobbyist, Congress, and the senate, they flew in corporate jets. Which doesn’t make much sense when money is spent on flying private (The Balance 6). After the meeting between Congress and the automakers, congress agreed to give the automaker’s $23.4 billion in effort to bail them out. Even though Congress was slow lending General Motors the money, when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he made the process of the bailout speed up a bit and here was his thoughts, “that was not just writing a check but insisting on collaboration between management and workers and suppliers and dealers and shareholders, where everybody had to make some sacrifices. There was clear-eyed recognition that we couldn’t sustain business as usual. That’s what made this successful. If it had been just about putting more money in without restructuring these companies, we would have seen perhaps some of the bleedings slowed but we wouldn’t have cured the patient.”

As a result of his policy, the American auto industry came out not only with the government’s money but also with a different set of owners and different structures. Besides Fiat, which became the largest stakeholder of Chrysler, the retiree fund also received its percentage from both Chrysler and General Motors. The latter gave 32 percent of its shares to the government and 35 percent – to private shareholders. The revived companies could hire new employees at lower pay when the union gave up strikes (Goolsbee and Krueger 6).

The bailout is now officially over and the Treasury Department sold its final 2 percent of GM shares making critics admit that the company has been freed from an ironic epithet “Government Motors”. Even though Chrysler remains a unit of Fiat, companies ended up with increased sales: the gain amounted to more than $26 billion, which means that GM and Chrysler are not only profitable but unprecedentedly profitable as they currently earn much more than they had over several decades. The sales statistics in the US between 2010 and 2017 shows the evident success of the measures (Goolsbee and Krueger 10).

Also, the results obtained had a considerable impact on the employment statistics: 250,000 labor losses have been successfully restored (Goolsbee and Krueger 6).

The most significant loss of the whole operation is financial. The whole operation cost taxpayers around $80 billion, which makes critics claim that the rescue of auto giants came at too high a price. According to different estimates, about $23 billion has been lost without any chance of being repaid. Partially, it happened because the retiree health benefits fund was treated too generously by the unions, which gave much more than it deserved (McNulty and Wisner 23).

However, the proponents of the bailout insist that unless the measures had been taken, the industry would have lost almost two million jobs and huge amounts of money as a result of reduced economic production, which may have led to an overall break down. It was estimated that 1.88 million job losses would have followed if General Motored had not been supported by the government; 4.15 million jobs would have been lost if the whole automobile industry had gone bankrupt; $39.4 billion would have hit the government (including the lost money of taxpayers) that would have had to provide unemployment payments to those who were affected by the industry disaster; $105.3 billion would have been the cost of the total collapse of the whole industry (McNulty and Wisner 24).

As far as President Obama’s attitude to the issue is concerned, he clearly states that the bailout was worth the candles. Moreover, he is sure that this was the only possible course of action under such circumstances and that these measures had a positive impact on the population, too. Indeed, it cannot be denied that auto bailouts were perceived negatively by the majority of Americans when they were introduced by President Bush. However, after they managed to save the industry from bankruptcy, their popularity has significantly increased (Goolsbee and Krueger 11).

When the President visited workers at plants, he claimed that betting on the success of the recovery was the right thing to do as they lived up to their promise and the money spent on the bailout has paid off. Obama is positive about the industry’s revival even though there is still no guarantee that the results obtained are going to be maintained in the future. Moreover, the President took measures against everyone who opposed the policy of bailouts. In his response to Republican opposition, he explained that if the government had remained passive on the peak of the auto crisis (as many politicians claimed it should do) and let the industry go bankrupt, the consequences for the country would be deplorable: a lot of companies, suppliers, distributors, and other stakeholders would have fallen victims of the economic breakdown. The President emphasized the fact that the government has already sold its shares of General Motors, which proves that it never had any intention to take control of the company. Moreover, he believes that the industry is now ready to shift for itself and repay taxpayers everything that the government invested in it at the time of hardship (Goolsbee and Krueger 15).

The President’s arguments seemed to be rather convincing as The Economist, one of the major opponents of the bailout intervention, offered an apology to Obama for its initial opinion. The magazine admitted that not only General Motors would have been liquidated but also other car manufacturers as they completely depend on the supply chain. This would have created panic and an overall collapse of the industry. The magazine also stressed the fact that the President did the right thing when he refused to use his stakes in General Motors for achieving personal and political goals, which proves that this primary concern was to help the companies regain their positions and continue to contribute to the prosperity of the US economy (Goolsbee and Krueger 19).

In conclusion, it can be noted that it is impossible to know what outcomes would have followed unless the government had chosen to interfere to help the industry out. It is highly possible that even those who believe that the intervention was a mistake would now accuse Obama of neglect if he had decided to ignore the requests for help. Thus, no matter what criticism the policy may currently face, the massive loss of jobs, the supply chain disruption as well as side effects on other car manufacturers were successfully prevented.

Works Cited

McNulty, Peggy A., and Joel D. Wisner. “The impacts of the 2008 government bailouts on the US automobile industry.” The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp. 20-29.

Goolsbee, Austan D., and Alan B. Krueger. “A retrospective look at rescuing and restructuring general motors and chrysler.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 2, 2015, pp. 3-23.

Introduction

Drones are actually referred as being the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). As the name suggests, drones do not have any pilot or other flight crew. They are mainly controlled by ground pilots. But, in some rare cases, drones also pursue an already programmed operation. Basically, Drones are used for two purposes: for surveillance and for bombing any particular target. There are certain benefits or plus points associated with Drones. First of all, as mentioned earlier, they are unmanned and, as such, there is no danger of any life being lost. Secondly, the cost of a Drone is much less than an Armed Forces aircraft. Finally, Drones have the capacity to remain airborne for a longer period as compared to a manned aircraft. A lot of time is saved owing to the fact that there are no frequent landings and take-offs. The process of flying a drone entails three phases. In the first phase, a qualified and well trained person takes the Drone to the air (flies) from the conflict precinct. Then a team of technicians keeps a constant vigil over the Drone’s movements on the video screens. A third team maintains continuous contact with the troops at the battle field for regular updates. “Drones are remotely operated by CIA headquarters from Langley, West Virginia, USA or from its bases in Khost, Afghanistan and Pakistan” (Nasir 2012). “The US has two separate ‘squadron’ of armed drones: one run by the US Air Force and the other run by the CIA. Using drones, the USAF Air Force has increased the number of combat air patrols it can fly by 600 percent over the past six years” (Cole et al. 2010). Drones keep flying for long hours over suspected areas and keep on sending images to the base station. As soon as something concrete is noticed, an attack is conducted. “Unmanned aerial vehicles have soared the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq for years, spotting enemy encampments, protecting military bases, and even launching missile attacks against suspected terrorists” (McCullagh 2006).

The invention of drones dates back to a little after the World War II. Initially, drones were designed for doing surveillance and were used by the United States during the Vietnam War, for the purpose of gathering information on intelligence. Through the year 2001, drones were customized to carry armaments and heavy ammunition. Armed Drones were first used in Afghanistan during November 2001. But as far as Pakistan is concerned, the United States started using armed Drones since 2004. The C. I. A. holds the responsibility for the Drone attacks in Pakistan. “The C. I. A. began using drones in Pakistan in 2004, even though the United States was not engaged in a war with that country. Under President Obama, the use of drones in Pakistan has escalated dramatically. Following the attacks in Khost, the C. I. A. increased the attacks to every other day, up from about once a week” (O’connell 2010).

The United States argues that it is appropriate to use Drones to nail dreaded terrorist hideouts and their leaders. But if the humanitarian aspect is looked at, innocent civilians are also killed in such attacks. According to official sources, it is estimated that one third of the people killed in Drone attacks were civilians. But actual body count portrays a different picture, according to which for a single terrorist, about fifty civilians are killed (Cole, Dobbing & Hailwood 2010). According to Akbar Nasir, America successfully put into action its Drones during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, recently, in Pakistan. America is following a tactic that involves execution and not detaining the militants.

Political Theories

Defensive Realism

This particular theory is very apt to the topic of this dissertation. The United States is using Drones in Pakistan in order to flush out the extremists who are threatening the security of its citizens. But, at the same time, the actions are threatening the security of the general public of Pakistan. It is quite possible that due to the loss of its citizens’ lives, Pakistan may retaliate in some or the other manner and moreover, “…it is not a good idea to be powerful because when you push towards that direction of acquiring power, other states tend to try to balance against you to try to cut you at the knees” (Troy 2004).

Constructivism

Constructivist theory also relates to the topic of this dissertation. This theory pertains to the effect of ideas on the society. Here, the importance is given to ideas spread by discourses because with the passage of time, such ideas take the shape of faith, conviction and significance which, in turn, gradually become custom and code of conduct for people of the society. This theory relates to this dissertation in the sense that the United States is targeting the extremists by Drone attacks. These extremists are the results of the effect of communal or religious ideas being spread by a group of people through discourses. Such ideas may not be supported by any state or country but they nurture within the society. “Because the social gives meaning to the material, many core concepts, including anarchy, power, national interest, security dilemma, and others, are seen as socially constructed rather than as the ineluctable consequences of system structures” (Holsti). These extremists are threatening the existence of peace and harmony in the United States and, as such, the United States is attacking such extremists just to secure its citizens and their properties. Moreover, Pakistan was considered to give shelter to militants in order to serve its own interests.

Use of Drones during Bush Administration

Immediately after assuming office in 2001, George W. Bush proclaimed the War on Terror. It was supposed to be a military campaign at the international level and included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States, in its endeavor to wipe off terrorism, was supported by the United Kingdom and some other countries. The main motive of War on Terror was to eliminate terrorists, their organizations and their hideouts. In attaining this motive, the Bush administration entered into a coalition with Pakistan (with support from then Pakistan President Parvez Musharraf) and got the authorization of using three of its airbases for use in Operation Enduring Freedom. It is understood that due to the continuous strikes on terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan, the main leaders of the terrorist organizations took shelter in Pakistan, along the Afghanistan border. The Bush Administration was not ignorant of the developments. As such, in 2004, the Bush Administration initialized the use of armed Drones in order to wipe out the terrorist outfits such as Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

The Drone attacks were under the direct control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States and were part of the War on Terrorism.

The following table shows some of the casualties that happened in Drone attacks during the Bush administration (George W. Bush served as the President of the United States from 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009):

In addition to ones mentioned in the table, there were several other Drone attacks in which, though there were several casualties, no major terrorist was killed. It is evident from the aforementioned table that the main attacks were made during the latter half of 2008. “The more expansive target set was originally approved in the final months of the Bush administration in late 2008, but has been stepped up under the Obama White House” (CNN 2010).

After the gruesome incident of 11 September 2001, President Bush got full support from the government. The Congress endorsed the American President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nationals, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” (Jewett et al. 2004). This proved to be a shot in the arm for President Bush.

Increase of Drone attacks during Obama Administration

Barack Obama took oath as the President of the United States of America on January 20, 2009. In addition to the various tasks that he was supposed to do, the main and probably the most important one was to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and destroy his terrorist outfit, Al-Qaeda. “The President believes that we need to use all elements of American power to defeat Al-Qaeda, including the strength of our military, intelligence, diplomacy and American justice” (CBSNews 2010). The mission of putting an end to the terrorist activities of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was already into full force. Obama had to further strengthen the mission. Ever since Obama assumed office, he has been sincerely after the success of the mission. The Drone attacks increased after he became President. “It was only the second drone strike in Miram Shah since the campaign started in 2004 – the first occurred last November – suggesting that the C. I. A. has expanded its targeting ‘box’ in the tribal belt to include more densely populated areas, which had been previously avoided” (Khan et al. 2012). However, there have been certain incidents like the one involving American official Raymond David that have slowed down the mission. On January 27, 2011, Raymond David had shot two Pakistani nationals and another Pakistani national was killed by a vehicle that had come to rescue Raymond David from the wrath of the crowd. Raymond David was arrested. In order to seek the release of Raymond David, Obama temporarily deferred the Drone attacks. Another incident that forced America to temporarily stop the Drone attacks was the killing of two dozen Pakistani military personnel by the NATO forces towards the end of 2011. After this incident, Drone attacks were stalled for a period of about two months.

Usually America does not talk much about Drone attacks in public. But, recently, “US President Barack Obama confirmed that unmanned drones have regularly struck Pakistan’s tribal areas in his government’s efforts to dismantle what it alleges are Al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the region” (Aljazeera 2012).

This, obviously, gave the terrorists a sigh of relief. In the ensuing paragraphs, the various factors responsible for Drone attacks in Pakistan are discussed in detail. But, before that, let us have a look at the details of Drone attacks during Obama administration. The following table enlists some of the main Drone attacks:

“Following a spike in tensions between the US and Pakistan in the wake of the American raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the number of drone attacks dropped last year” (Rediff 2012).

The Osama Bin Laden Factor

Osama Bin Laden was the founder of the terrorist outfit, Al-Qaeda. It was during Soviet Union’s war on Afghanistan that Osama was able to set up international contacts with people who were of his Islamist ideology. The response from such contacts instigated him to form Al-Qaeda in the year 1988. The motive of Al-Qaeda was to unite the Muslim world and to keep the foreigners at bay from intervening in the affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. It is noteworthy that during the Afghanistan war, Osama was helped indirectly by America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. After a lengthy war (1979-1988), the Soviet Union had to accept defeat due to the increasing terrorist activities. Once the war was over, people who assisted Osama went back to their countries throughout the world and this made Al-Qaeda a global terrorist outfit. After having a base in Sudan for about five years (1991-1996), Osama shifted his base to Afghanistan. During these years, American interference in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia had increased to a great extent. So, Osama pointed his guns towards the Americans.

Since then, Al-Qaeda carried out many attacks aimed at Americans. The September 11 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was a part of Al-Qaeda’s strategy. In the attack, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes. Two of these planes were flown into the World Trade Centre and one was crashed into Pentagon. The third one crashed in Pennsylvania. The attack was very severe and resulted in the death of 3000 people. “Bin Laden’s name has been linked to a number of incidents that have cost Americans their lives, including the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and the destruction of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and now, he is linked to the recent catastrophic assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon” (Bodansky 2001).

An understanding of the reasons of Osama Bin Laden’s hatred towards America brings out some facts. It is said that Osama Bin Laden was hungry for power. America being the most powerful nation, he could not digest the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasoning was that Saudi Arabia being a sacred place, foreigners should not be allowed there. He even went to the extent of opposing the royal family for supporting and allowing the American troops on the holy land. Later on, Osama was forced to leave the country. As such, his hatred for the United States started increasing. Another reason for the hatred was Osama’s being fundamentalist. Obviously, he hated the capitalists and America being a capitalist, was great economic influence over the world. Another reason was America’s control over the oil producing Muslim nations. Osama Bin Laden wanted to establish Islamist governments in all the Muslim nations. But the presence of American troops and the economic influence that America had on these nations prevented Osama from doing so. In such circumstances, Osama thought that the best way to minimize American interference was to attack the innocent American citizens. This is how the story began.

It was on August 23, 1996 that Osama Bin Laden proclaimed war against America. It is called the ‘declaration of war’. In his letter to Muslims all around the world, he urged them to participate in the religious war (Jihad) against America. He also urged Muslims to force out the Americans from the holy place of Saudi Arabia. In the year 1998, major Muslim militants came under the umbrella of Osama Bin Laden and formed an organization called the International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews. A fatwa (religious doctrine) was also issued during this time. The fatwa urged Muslims to get rid of Americans whenever and wherever possible.

All such incidents forced America to take stern action against Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Drone attacks were increased and terrorist outfits came under attack in some Muslim countries. “For over seven years, the U. S. government has been using drone attacks in Pakistan. In 2009, President Obama has continued with the Bush Administration’s agenda to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants by the use of drones in Pakistan. A major concern is that these drone attacks are killing hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan” (Murtza 2011). “One mission of the drones was to help locate Osama Bin Laden in conjunction with the CIA…” (Johnson).

Before Osama Bin Laden could fulfill his dream of destroying America, he himself was killed brutally. “Using unmanned planes designed to evade radar detection and operate at high altitudes, the agency conducted clandestine flights over the compound for months before the May 2 assault in an effort to capture high resolution video that satellites could not provide” (Miller 2011). “…two U. S. helicopters flew in low from Afghanistan and swept into the compound…and engaged Bin Laden and his men in a firefight, and killed Bin Laden and all those with him” (Ross et al. 2011).

The Raymond David Factor

Raymond David was an employee of the American consulate in Pakistan. On January 27, 2011, he shot two Pakistani nationals in broad daylight in Lahore. Seeing the anger being developed among the gathered crowd, he called his office and immediately a four wheel drive with some of his associates came to his rescue. Another person was killed under the vehicle. Raymond David was arrested. This is a short story about the incident. But this and some other incidents had great impact on the relation of Pakistan and America. The relation got so sour that Pakistan refrained from attending the Bonn conference. The conference was called to evaluate and assess the prevailing situations in Afghanistan. “Pakistan’s wrath against the CIA after the Raymond Davis case in Lahore early 2011 had bought the US-Pakistan quarrel to a boiling point” (Tribune 2012).

There are different versions of the story related to the incident of Raymond David. According to Raymond David, he killed the two men in order to save his own life. The two were said to be following his car. It is noticeable that the two men who were on a motorbike were carrying pistols. They are being portrayed as robbers. It is understood that Raymond David had taken out money from an ATM and the two men were after the money. But a US diplomat carrying a gun is a matter of grave concern. “The issue of American diplomats or their security detail carrying weapons inside Pakistan was a hot-button subject last year among certain politicians and sections of the media purportedly worried about the country’s sovereignty” (Whatsonsanya 2011).

“Police suspect that the American, who killed three people in Lahore on Thursday, is an undercover agent of an American spy agency, well-placed sources in the Punjab government told The News” (Manzoor 2011).

In order to secure the safe release of Raymond David, Obama administration decided to temporarily abstain from sending any Drones into Pakistan. It is to be thought why America would stop its mission in between just because of an employee of its consulate. There seems to be more in this and not just the consulate factor. Many believe that Raymond David was America’s secret agent. Moreover, the Pakistani media has portrayed the two men killed by Raymond David as being ISI agents. If these two statements are to be believed, the whole story changes. The two supposed ISI agents were following Raymond David because of his apprehensive activities. It is reported that Raymond David was in possession of some objectionable items like a highly sophisticated camera, first-aid gear and a telescope. Doctors who did the postmortem of the two bodies say that the shots were fired from behind. This means that there was no confrontation between Raymond David and the two motorcyclists.

But US officials have a different story to tell. According to them, “Davis is a contractor to the US Government through his company Hyperion Protective Services LLC, registeredin Arizona as providing ‘High Risk Threat Protection’,…He is also a former US soldier” (Woods 2011).

Whatever the reasons and facts, the outcome is that Pakistani people are enraged and their anti-American feelings have gone up. In order to pacify the Pakistani citizens, the Prime Minister said: “I stand with the people of Pakistan on the issue of American citizen Raymond Davis” (as cited in Dawn).

Afghanistan Factor

After the Afghan War ended, some American and NATO forces were stationed in Afghanistan to maintain peace, law and order. The militants, who prior to the war were based in Afghanistan, had taken shelter in Waziristan area of Pakistan once the war started. Waziristan is Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. The area is full of mountains with dense forests. The militants found the area suitable for their hiding. “North Waziristan is one of seven districts in Pakistan’s tribal region along the Afghan border and widely believed to be a haven for the Haqqani network and other militant groups that are fuelling the insurgency in Afghanistan” (Habib 2012). Once the war ended, the militants started attacking the American and NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. Being on a height, the militants were at an advantage. After carefully studying the situation, American authorities requested the Pakistani authorities to launch ground attacks on the militants. But Pakistani officials said their forces were busy elsewhere. So, America had to think of an alternate in order to tackle with the militants who were posing threat to the American and NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. That is when the Drone attacks were planned. And once started, America thought of using the Drones to track down militants hiding in Pakistan and kill them. “The usually unacknowledged Central Intelligence Agency’s drone program, an important element of the U. S. counter-terrorism strategy in the region, appeared to have been halted after a NATO cross-border air attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, sparking fury in Pakistan” (Mehsud 2012).

Referring to Al-Qaeda and Taliban, Ghanizada wrote that “The two militant groups claim to have incurred casualties to Afghan and NATO troops following missile attacks on the two military bases” (Ghanizada 2012).

America’s point of view

After Obama took the office of America’s President, he maintained the Drone strikes on terrorist outfits in Pakistan. The reason for this was that previous Drone strikes had showed some encouraging results. Many top leaders of Al-Qaeda had been killed in the attacks. The American officials feel that the Drone attacks are a true and befitting reply to the terrorist activities being carried out by Al-Qaeda. In an interview to Greg Bruno, Zenko M (2010) said: “Unmanned drone strikes are an essential tool for killing who provide guidance and operational support for international terrorism. The apparent killing of Al-Yezdi represents an important small victory, given his connections to terrorist plots abroad, and his declarations last summer that Al-Qaeda would use nuclear weapons against the United States.” President Barack Obama said: “A lot of these strikes have been in Pakistan’s tribal areas…For the most part, they’ve been very precise precision strikes against Al-Qaeda and their affiliates and we’re very careful in terms of how it’s been applied” (Buncombe 2012).

Drones have been used in attacks in Pakistan since the year 2004. But since Obama became the American President, figures show a steep increase in the attacks aimed at Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Available data show that the Drone strikes have almost doubled during the Obama administration as compared to those during Bush administration.

Moreover, the American government has full support of its citizens in carrying out such attacks. Everyone is concerned about the safety of his/her family and property. If terrorists are not contained, people will always have to live in fear of death. So, it can be said that the Drone attacks are a result of self defense and hence are lawful. Harold Koh, who is a legal advisor in the US State Department, argued that since America was facing an armed clash with terrorist outfits, it would be justified to use weapons in self defense. As far as the killing of innocents is concerned, American officials argue that before finalizing any target to kill, a thorough test is carried out which is attended by at least 10 lawyers. These lawyers submit their comments on the target, whether the attack is justified or not. If a majority of the comments suggest that the attack on that particular individual is not justified, the attack is not carried out. According to the US officials, the Drone attacks have been very successful because in March 2009 alone, Drone attacks wiped off nine of the high profile commanders of AL-Qaeda. As a result, the remaining had to take shelter in Quetta and Karachi. But there are certain politicians in the United States who feel that the Drone attacks in Pakistan are not legal and justified. They argue that Pakistan has never initiated an attack on America and, in such situations, it is against the Internal Laws to attack such a country. Moreover, the number of civilians killed is far more than the actual targets. They also argue that the people who operate the Drones are not from the armed forces. They are civilians and, as such, they have no right to launch such attacks. In fact, they should be subjected to prosecution.

But personnel from the US military argue that owing to the dreadful Drone attacks, Al-Qaeda is being gradually disintegrated. Taliban is also not left behind. In this ongoing ruckus, there have been major differences between Al-Qaeda and Taliban. As far as the deaths of civilians are concerned the Obama administration has been advised to take greater precautions so that the loss of civilian lives is minimized. And to pacify the Pakistani government and to impose faith, America has proposed to share the surveillance data. But this might be just a gimmick because the Americans know that Pakistan will leak the information to the terrorists.

It is also understood that American forces are stationed in Afghanistan in order to maintain law and order in the war torn country. Pakistan borders with Afghanistan at Waziristan (Pakistan). Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants use the mountain terrain to stealthily attack American forces in Afghanistan. The American officials have, at various occasions, requested the Pakistani government to launch a ground attack in order to crush the militants. But Pakistan has not taken the requests seriously. “While unpopular among the Pakistani public, the drone strikes have become a weapon of choice for the Obama administration after the Pakistani Army rebuffed pleas to mount a ground offensive in North Waziristan to take on the militants who use the area to strike at American and NATO forces in Afghanistan” (Perlez et al. 2010).

Pakistan’s point of view

The Drone attacks carried out by America in Pakistan are in defiance with the International Laws and hamper Pakistan’s freedom. As has been mentioned earlier, the major loss of lives and property is that of the civilians. This has irked the Pakistani government as much as it has become a matter of grave concern. The Pakistani people are full of anger against the Drone attacks. People lose their near and dear ones and their properties are destroyed. “Pakistan has previously complained that such attacks violate its sovereignty” (BBC 2012).

“The increasing influence of American officials in Pakistan state affairs has always caused an increased anti-American sentiment among Pakistanis. Be it the political influence, drone attacks or alleged presence of ‘secret’ security agencies such as BlackWater!” (Janjua 2011).

It is understood that the Pakistani government might oppose the Drone attacks in public but internally it has connived with the American government and has allowed America to use its airbases for flying the Drones. But if we consider the efforts being made by the Pakistani President in requesting America to stop the Drone attacks, it seems that even the Pakistani government is fed up with the attacks. But the repeated requests have had no change in America’s plans. The Obama administration is bent upon wiping off the terrorists and their hideouts. In an attempt to gain access to the surveillance data, Pakistan requested the American authorities to hand over to them the controls of the Drones. This way they would be able to put an end to the militant menace more effectively. But the request was denied by the American authorities. The reason being that American officials are of the opinion that once the control of Drones is given to the Pakistani authorities, militants will roam freely without any fear.

In an astonishing revelation, Daily Times disputed the general understanding that the people of Waziristan were angered by the attacks carried out by Drones. The fact is contradictory to the common belief. According to Farhat Taj, the fact is that the people of Waziristan are delighted by invent of Drones due to the fact that they are now free from the grasp of the militants of AL-Qaeda and Taliban and also from ISI.

There have been many sides of stories regarding Pakistan government’s reaction on the use of Drones by America. During December 2011, the Pakistani Army Chief is understood to have authorized the shooting down of the Drones. But then, in news, it was revealed that Pakistan had entered into a secret pact with America to again allow US Drones to fly from Pakistani soil.

Whatever has happened has been in the greater interests of Pakistan because due to the Drone attacks, the country has been able to get rid of a few dreaded foes. “The border attack spurred Pakistan’s political parties to form a parliamentary committee to review the U. S. relationship. A decision on whether to permit drone missions is one of the most anticipated elements of the review, which has not been made public” (Lakshmanan 2012).

“However, the attacks have become a source of friction between Washington and Islamabad and have angered many Pakistanis who see them as breach of their sovereignty and the cause of frequent civilian deaths” (Griffiths 2012).

Talking of Al-Qaeda, documents found form Osama Bin Laden’s house, after his death, revealed that Osama was not happy with the Drone attacks. He was worried due to the fact that the Drone attacks were killing his militants faster than he could recruit new ones. As such, the strength of Al-Qaeda was decreasing day by day. In order to get rid of the Drones, Osama had even planned to attack AeroVironment, the manufacturers of Drones.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Terrorism is a global menace and it is very important for governments to adopt counter terrorism measures in order to safeguard the interests of citizens. But this does not mean that armies should trespass into other nations’ territories. And even if any particular nation allows some other nation to use its territory for search operations, it does not mean that the civilians should be put at risk. This is like taking undue advantage. Pakistan did a mistake in allowing American forces to operate their mission. In return, what did America do? Killed innocent civilians in the name of getting rid of militants? This is not done. America says that it is getting rid of global terrorism. But, actually, the country is serving its own interests. Al-Qaeda posed a major threat to its people. Past incidents showed Al-Qaeda’s capabilities. To avoid any future attacks from Al-Qaeda, the country is hunting down Al-Qaeda militants. It is good to eliminate terrorism from the roots but not at the cost of civilians. In order to safeguard the American citizens, American forces are killing innocent Pakistani civilians. “This is a targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases, and so on” (as cited by TheNation 2012). What justice is this? Are Pakistanis not humans? Or are Americans greater human beings? Moreover, if America is so much concerned about eradicating global terrorism, why does it not get involved in other countries where other sects of terrorists are creating havoc? And if at all America is conducting drone attacks in Pakistan, it should take the Pakistani government into confidence and then proceed with the mission. But as reports suggest, Pakistani authorities are requesting America to stop the drone attacks but America is not paying heed. As a result, an anti-America feeling is getting developed among the Pakistani citizens. This may have very bitter and harmful consequences for America.

The government of the United States of America might have a point here because as is the reputation of Pakistan, it would be disastrous to provide Pakistan access to the surveillance data. It is feared that there might be some people who may leak the information and thus alert the target and thereby help the target in fleeing the attack area. All said and done, America should conduct the Drone attacks in a manner that civilian lives are not lost. Pakistan is a densely populated country and as such Drone attacks are bound to have an impact on the civilians.

Another way to tackle with the militants can be diplomatic talks with the Pakistani government. America is a rich country and as such, it can offer aids to Pakistan in lieu of information on militants. Then ground operations can be conducted to apprehend such militants.

There has been sharp criticism of the American Drone attacks in Pakistan. The criticism comes from the esteemed United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). UNHRC was worried about the civilian casualties. According to UNHRC, America had failed in keeping a record of Pakistani civilian deaths due to the American Drone attacks. America was flouting all International laws just to facilitate the achievement of its objectives. UNHRC asked American government to explain the killing of innocent civilians in the Drone attacks. But American authorities have been adamant on not giving any reply. “In the second new report confirming civilian casualties in US drone strikes, Reprieve has filed a major case with the United Nations Human Rights Council” (Woods 2012). “The rapid expansion in the size and scope of the drone campaign as the U. S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been winding down has led to increased criticism from human rights and international law experts, many of whom dispute the legal justification for the program” (DeYoung 2011).

Mixed reactions have been observed from various sections of the Pakistani people. Some feel that the Drone attacks are justified in the sense that at least they are able to live without any fear of Al-Qaeda, Taliban or ISI. But there are some others who believe the Drone attacks as murderous. They feel America is intentionally killing innocent people to prove its supremacy. Such people can not digest the fact that the Pakistani government is helpless in front of America and can do nothing to prevent the killings of innocent Pakistani people.

Another faction of people feels that the numbers of casualties portrayed in different media are not correct. In fact, there are very less civilian casualties. The only ones killed are members of the families of the militants. It is the remaining militants who later claim to be civilians and declare the death toll.

References

Aljazeera 2012, Obama admits Pakistan drone attacks, Web.

BBC 2012, Pakistan: US drones ‘kill 15’ in South Waziristan, Web.

Bodansky, Y 2001, Bin Laden: The man who declared war on America, New York Times, New York.

Buncombe, A 2012, Obama admits use of Drones in Pakistan, Web.

CBSNews 2010, Obama has increased drone attacks, Web.

CNN 2010, U. S. official: Greater use of drones goes back to Bush era, Web.

Cole, C Dobbing, M & Hailwood, A 2010, Armed Drones and the ‘Playstation’ mentality, Web.

Cole, C & Wright, J 2010, What are drones?, Web.

Dawn 2012, No back-door solution to Davis case, says Gilani, Web.

DeYoung 2011, Secrecy defines Obama’s drone war, Web.

Ghanizada 2012, Militants attack NATO and Afghan military bases in Khost, Web.

Griffiths, P 2012, Hague faces suit over Pakistan drone strikes, Web.

Habib, N 2012, 5 killed in drone attack in Pakistan, Web.

Holsti, O n.d., Theories of International Relations, 2012, Web.

Janjua, F 2011, Protesting the American terrorist Raymond David!, Web.

Jewett, R Lawrence, JS 2004, Captain America and the crusade against evil, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan.

Johnson, B n.d., What are drone strikes?, 2012, Web.

Khan, I Walsh, D 2012, Drone kills Pakistani militant, official says, Web.

Lakshmanan, AR 2012, Pakistan tells White House to end drone attacks on terrorists, Web.

Manzoor, U 2011, Punjab Police suspect US killer is a spy, 2012, Web.

McCullagh, D 2006, Drone aircraft may prowl U. S. skies, Web.

Mehsud, S 2012, U. S. drone strikes kill 15 in Northwest Pakistan, Web.

Miller, G 2011, CIA flew stealth drones into Pakistan to monitor Bin Laden house, Web.

Murtza, S 2011, Drone attacks in Pakistan, Web.

Nasir, A 2012a, U. S. policy of targeted killing by drones in Pakistan, Web.

O’Connell, M 2010, Flying Blind, Web.

Perlez, J Shah, PZ 2010, Drones batter Al Qaeda and its allies within Pakistan, Web.

Rediff 2012, US drone strikes kill 15 militants in Pakistan, Web.

Ross, B Tapper, J Esposito, R & Schifrin, N 2011, Osama Bin Laden killed by Navy SEALs in firefight, 2012, Web.

TheNation 2012, Obama confirms drone attacks in Pakistan, Web.

Tribune 2012, The mystery of the drone attacks, Web.

Troy, M 2004, U. S. History / Realism, Web.

Whatsonsanya 2011, US official Raymond David arrested after ‘shooting dead 2 motorcyclists’ in Lahore, Web.

Woods, C 2011, Secret CIA drone attacks in Pakistan suspended, as Obama seeks to free imprisoned ‘diplomat’, Web.

Woods, C 2012, Fresh evidence of CIA civilian deaths in Pakistan revealed, Web.

Looking at the current situation in the political world, it is impossible to omit the election of Barak Obama on the second term. Such forecasts were, however, the American opinion was against Obama. Still, the elections showed that people still support the first African American president and trust him. During the first days of his presidency in the second term, Obama has faced a dilemma concerning supreme courts.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are two justices in a supreme court whose age is too high to allow them stay at their positions for a lengthy period of time. There is an idea that these two justices are going to leave their places after the end of Obama’s second term. However, much may happen and there is a possibility that Barak Obama would have a desire to replace them before.

The dilemma whether Barak Obama would nominate another woman or two to replace Justices Ginsburg and Breyer or men are going to be chosen is rather contradicting. It is impossible to read Obama’s thoughts, therefore, we can just predict. On the one hand, the President had already nominated two women justices in a supreme court.

Is he does the same with Justice Ginsburg, it would mean that he made three appointment. Moreover, if something happen to Justice Breyer, Obama would enter a history as the president who made it possible for women to get nearly half the quotes of the court.

Even though it is difficult to predict, it is still possible to make an assumption and state that Barak Obama would choose two women to replace existing Justices. Such choice may be explained by a number of reasons.

First of all, Barak Obama is the first African American president who underlined the fact that the USA got rid of racial discrimination. Even though the slavery abolition took place many years ago, the remains of the issue could be felt. The election of an African American president put an end on the discussions about the racial discrimination.

Now, it seems that Barak Obama wants to go farther and to destroy the glass ceiling which bothers many women. Even though the gender discrimination is forbidden and women are equal to men in business sphere, glass ceiling still remains the problem in many companies.

The nomination of two women as Justices may show the whole society that women can occupy leading positions and run successful affairs. Therefore, it should be stated that in case such actions take place, Obama would be remembered as the most democratic president.

The actions conducted by the president on the national level are important. It is essential to remember that the actions of the President are seen to the whole society. Therefore, all he does can be checked. The efficiency of women as Justices would be checked as well, therefore, no one is able to contradict the fact that the actions of a president may have sense.

So, I am inclined to think that Barak Obama should nominate women replace Justices Ginsburg and Breyer as this my helps solve some social problems which exist in the American society. Glass ceiling still remains the barrier for many women on the way to their careers. The actions of the president may play a great role in the further social relations in the country.

Introduction

Obama’s speech created a discourse of his political rhetoric of hope, change, and unity among the audience who constitute people from other nations apart from America. His speech can be classified as a Political Genre due to the nature of his message. Careful not to disappoint the electorate, his rhetoric gave hope, promised change, and brought unity to the United States. The exigency among the audience was the prime promise of the president which included hope, change, and unity. This paper seeks to analyze President Obama’s rhetoric to identify its discourse or the rational system of its meaning.

Rhetoric situation

The world seems to be embracing the idea of change from the different levels of our social settings. In response to the exigency to bring change for the nation filled with lost hope, Obama took advantage of the crisis situation by rebuilding confidence in the electorate. His rhetoric emphasized heated rivalry against the republican while influencing his audience to respond with the emergency that he held. Through antagonistic relations, Obama has been able to create a universal political project through his message of hope. Obama’s rhetoric can be described as a perfect way of universalizing his political plans.

In his speech, the president gave hope through words of affirmation pointing out that the American people thrive on hope and the strength of their constitution. This created an impression that his government was going to respect the basic principles of democratic governance. He cleverly dismisses racism when he mentions that the United States was brought together by the declaration of their forefathers’ commitment on equality. In an effort to persuade his audience to respond positively to his rhetoric, Obama brands his political ideologies ‘unending journey’. This creates the impression that the entire American population must leave in pursuit of the same.

Exigencies

In the rhetoric, Obama identifies the problems in the society and articulates them in very emotional phrases in order to catch the audience’s attention. He reminds his audience that skin color has brought division in America and the struggle for equality was a severe price paid by their forefathers. He emphasizes on a self-executing nation, one that runs its own policies and respects the rule of law and democracy. His rhetoric appeal for individualized responsibility to execute principles of national importance took precedence. His examples to prove his points are simple and very articulate. For instance, his demonstration of how freedom is a gift from God and that it must be secured by humans on the Earth attracted a lot of attention followed by applause.

In his speech, he reiterates that the American people have chosen to thrive in hope rather than fear and to embrace unity as opposed to division (Tomasky, 2008). This is an easily understood and extremely handy message of change, that builds around a sequence of unforgettable refrain (Lee, 2009). More exclusively, Obama’s narrative is made unequivocally personal by habitual appeals to the daily practice of the working American, “plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas” and “the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA”, “the waitress who lives on tips” or just “another worker telling me that his factory has shut down” (Hill, 2008). His utterances in the speech clearly show a personal grief in his rhetoric. Obama seems to be talking from a point of experience and his understanding of the challenges he articulates is a proof to his assertion.

Audience

His rhetoric shared the spirit of reconciliation when he said that the black community made a vow to forget the past and move forward together (Uhlenbeck, 2008). He asserted that for survival purposes, it is impossible for the black Americans to survive as half-slaves and half-free. His discourse about protecting the vulnerable also gathered major support from the audience whose exigency is mainly inequality, oppression, and marginalization of the minority communities. Obama’s narrative has been expressed in reaction to a dislocation of communal sense that is only half-done. Though his speech he has rationalized societal associations and reordered subject situations, his rhetoric has constantly sought integrity, obtaining influence from an amalgamation of recognizable policies and logics (Uhlenbeck, 2008).

The consequential sequence of events has structured a discursive dislocation, in spite of holding onto the rules of creation and conditions of adequacy of a more all-purpose discursive pattern (Washingtonpost.com, 2008). While emphasizing dislocation and invigorating bias, Obama’s discourse of hope has worked to streamline societal associations around a hegemonic belief that is domestic, not secondary, by lengthening conformist chains of correspondence. At the same time, Obama’s rhetoric has been endorsed and categorized as an element of a previously prevailing discursive structure (Washingtonpost.com, 2008).

Constraints

Identifying self-referentiality and intertextuality, Obama’s discourse can be conceptualized as a promising part of a stable discursive pattern (Washingtonpost.com, 2008). This is achieved seen by recounting the fabrication of a sensationalist narrative that is astounding, straightforward and personal. Nonetheless, such an analysis is difficult, materialized, and conflictual when matched by a negative scrutiny which portrays Obama’s discourse as a universalizing political project, expressed in reaction to disarticulation (Washingtonpost.com, 2008). Using the investigative structure of the emblematic circumstances, this substandard disagreement can be resolute by locating Obama indirectly, and recounting the chronological and political framework into which he is speaking (Washingtonpost.com, 2008).

All through every of the five articulations examined, Obama’s speech relies widely on personalization, linking an essential generalization of history (Von Drehle, 2008). After momentarily recognizing where his expression can be considered blatantly personal, straightforward or breathtaking, this concludes by describing his idea of history and a significant course of action. While Obama’s speech is constantly exciting, created around a roughly inimitable rhetorical aptitude to motivate, his point is in the same way effective through its lack of essence, characteristically gyrating around a recurrence of “stylistic felicities” (Von Drehle, 2008). Straightforward expressions which appeal to great listeners send in a perspective which for the time being put on a pedestal their sense higher than the trite (Uhlenbeck, 2008).

Conclusion

This paper has identified the Obama’s inaugural speech as a special artifact and has explored its discourse extensively. In the paper, Obama’s rhetoric has been analyzed and identified and it includes hope, change, and unity. His message has been classified as an easy to remember and straightforward text. However, in the essay the speech has been criticized for lack of content and for the repetition of ideas. Nonetheless, the speech has passed as a perfect rhetoric for influencing a political project like he’s. The personalization aspect of his speech has been overly emphasized in this essay balancing between whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage.

References

Hill, M., L. (2008). Not My Brand of Hope: Obama’s Politics of Cunning, Compromise, and Concession. Web.

Lee, C., E. (2009). Obama gets personal. Web.

Tomasky, M. (2008). 12 months that changed the world. Web.

Uhlenbeck, M. (2008). Shifting Landscapes: Obama and the Movement. Web.

Von Drehle, D. (2008). Why History Can’t Wait: Person of the Year 2008. Web.

Washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance: A victim of president-elect Obama’s success. (2008). Web.

Introduction

Speeches, given by renowned leaders, have played a significant role in defining the affairs of this world. They have brought either destruction or beneficial outcomes to the intended audience. As this analysis reveals, two historic speeches, one by President Ronal Reagan and the other by President-elect Barrack Obama, have brought beneficial outcomes to the intended audience.

President Ronald Reagan’s Address at the Brandenburg Gate

On 12 June 1987, the United States President Ronald Reagan gave an address at the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany that challenged the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, to tear down the Berlin wall, which had been known to act as a symbol of communism. Thus, the need of this speech was influenced by the political circumstances of that time of ensuring the freedom of Berliners and thwarting the advancement of communism in the heat of the cold war.

Delivered before a crowd of approximately forty-five thousand individuals, including West German president Richard von Weizsacker, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and West Berlin mayor Eberhard Diepgen, the speech was a triumphant attempt to elicit freedom and eliminate the malpractices of the Soviet regime to the Germans, and even to the rest of the world. Thus, the audience listening to the speech was eager for emancipation from the evils of communism.

Standing in the middle of alternating American and German flags in front of two panes of bulletproof glass, and a platform having one microphone, decorated the whole length with German band of colors, the purpose of the President in delivering the speech was clear: he was obliged as the President of the United States to visit the oppressed in Germany.

As the most powerful person in the planet, President Reagan had a duty to speak and declare rebuke where it is due to ensure that the freedom is promoted in all parts of the world. Past American Presidents had also made the attempt of promoting the message of freedom so as to protect the world from oppressive rulers. President Reagan said, “Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, and speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall.

Well since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn to Berlin” (1). A weighted task was beforehand to be accomplished, and was to be accomplished through the forthcoming rhetoric; thus, the attention of the audience was fixed on the words to be spoken. As the eagerness increased, the President efficiently used logical appeal to put his point across.

Ronald Reagan’s messages in the speech were organized in an orderly fashion. He commences rather casually by recognizing the efforts of other American presidents who have strived to elicit freedom in the world. And, to attract the attention of the audience, he incorporates a phrase a German as the first paragraph culminates, “Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin” [I still have a suitcase in Berlin] (1).

As much as these words were taken from one of President Kennedy’s well-known foreign policy speeches, it is a perfect method that he used to capture the attention of his audience.

To capture the attention of his audience further, he employs the same technique in the next paragraph, For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin] (1).

Afterward, the speaker addresses the intricate issue at the moment: the wall itself and the network of obstacles that have threatened to segregate the German people. He said, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers” (2).

This is an astounding use of imagery as he says that a “gash,” a healing wound, is not made of torn flesh, but of barbed wire …. and guard tower, symbolizing that blood has flowed across the network of barriers that divide Germany. Next, he relates that image to the place where he was at that particular time, “Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German…” (1).

As he progressed with the speech, he repeatedly used the wall as a figurative language to depict the barrier to freedom that that the Germans ought to overcome for their complete liberalization. In addition, he contrasts the standards of living that have resulted from forty years of western ideals versus communist ideals and concludes that the only workable solution, even for the Soviets themselves, is to embrace the western type of lifestyle that guarantees freedom to the people (Edwards, 119).

Following this stark reminder, President Reagan directed the expectation of the crowd to the future. He said, “Yet, I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope…”(2). A notable example that the President used to support his thoughts that the western influence leads to freedom and prosperity was the Marshall Plan.

He reminded his audience that in their own experience, the U.S. specifically managed to attain liberty and success from some destroyed and devastated countries in the world. Citing George Marshall himself, Reagan asserted his position, “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos” (2).

Next, almost halfway to the end of the rhetoric, he comes to the famous electrocuting line that is direct challenge to action to the Soviet leader, “Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” (3).

After giving the call to action and issuing the challenge that the Soviets are to face up to, he sums up with the assurance that “the wall cannot withstand faith, it cannot withstand freedom” (6). In this case the wall is used connotatively to refer to barriers towards attaining freedom. The President then ends his remarks, not with a challenge, or call to action, as he had done this earlier, but with a fantastic little zinger pointed at the ones who were against his coming to Germany.

In the speech, Reagan used repetition and commas, with significant pauses, to make his message admirable and easy to understand. For example, “With — With our French — With our French and British partners” (5). Further, voice, pauses, and controversial language, for example, referring to the wall as a “scar” were aimed at expressing the President’s righteous fury at the oppression that was being practiced. In addition, this also depicted his empathy with the audience.

In delivering the speech, the President’s tone was respectful, confidential, heartfelt, stern yet friendly and conveyed unwavering assurance in the truth of what he was driving home. Through putting across his strongest convictions entirely without becoming furious and in a logical tone, the President efficiently got his audience on-side.

Although he raised his voice in calling for the destruction of the Berlin Wall, it did not make his audience to feel alienated because he was pointing at an obvious necessity that needed to be addressed. Thus, his reasonable remarks, delivered entirely without anger, raised the credibility of his message by far.

President’s Reagan use of ethos, logos, and pathos further increased the credence of his message. Even though he did not use ethos as much, maybe because the worldwide recognition of his power and office did not necessitate that, there are some instances he used the literary device.

For example, when he said that he is the President of the U.S. and also when he reminded his listeners that he is and elder person with lots of experience. As pointed out earlier, Reagan used logos by logical organizing the speech using organized thoughts. And, he used pathos by establishing a common ground with his listeners and by suggesting for ways of improving the east-west relations in the city Berlin. The President appealed to pathos through referring to the significant role that Berlin can play in the affairs of the world.

The short-term effects of the speech were not very pronounced. The audience felt challenged and they started strategizing on their road to emancipation. The speech did not receive very high media coverage at the time of delivery until twenty years later. Soviets were also not pleased with the speech and they accused the U.S. president of delivering openly provocative remarks. Nonetheless, the long-term effects of the speech are still evident even today.

By the end of 1989, the Berlin wall was ultimately brought down and the Communists government of Eastern Europe collapsed (Engel, 1). This brought positive changes to the lives of the Berliners as they started to enjoy freedom that they had never had for a long time. Reagan’s career was enhanced due to the speech and went he back to Germany in September 1990 to pay tribute to the successful destruction of the wall.

Barack Obama – President-Elect Victory Speech

After being successfully elected as the forty-fourth President of the United States, Barrack Obama issued his historic acceptance speech at Grant Park in his home city of Chicago, Illinois before an approximately two hundred and forty thousand gathered people. Delivered on November 5, 2008, the speech is regarded as one of the most widely viewed and repeated political addresses in history since it centered the key issues facing the U.S. and the world at large.

The rhetoric echoed on his campaign slogan of change: “Yes we can”. Obama’s victory speech came at a time when the U.S. had to deal with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the effects of global warming were starting to be felt, and the world had to deal with the worst economic recession of the century. Thus, his speech was focused on tackling these core issues.

Further, Obama’s victory was mainly because the Americans were yearning for change and they voted for him despite the color of his skin and less experience in the politics of the nation (Metcalfe, 329). And, as the audience listened to the speech, the desire to break with the recent past clouded their faces. This made some of them, such as Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey to shed tears in the crowd.

In the victorious speech, the president-elect successfully turned the campaign vigor into a moment of national celebration. He used his amazing good oratory skills to deliver the enthralling national address. His use of a variety of techniques assisted in unifying his audience as well as to deliver effectively the balanced and orderly speech. He started by evoking the American Dream in the rousing first paragraph, “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible …., tonight is your answer.”

This reference echoes the speech by Martin Luther King, an inspirational speaker of the past who played a defining role in the issues of the U.S. (Fleming, 240) The use of this introductory technique captures the attention of the audience. Further, his use of the second person point of view, which refers directly to his listeners, “tonight is your answer…it belongs to you..” is cunningly included so as to illustrate the significance of the individual in the future of the United States as one nation.

This direct reference to the audience points out that his success and future attempts to change the United States will solely depend on the efforts of the collective, not on him alone. Therefore, this technique is important in enabling individuals to feel a sense of belonging; their attendance has been recognized.

In the next paragraph, Obama again uses the word answer, “Its the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches…” (para.2). The incorporation of “answer” again signifies that he brings solutions to the American people. Referring to schools and churches as ‘good’ places brings an element of hope that not all is lost.

Next, he uses contrasts to bring his point home, “It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white” (para. 3). The last line in the paragraph, “…collection of Red States and Blue States….” echoes his address at the 2004 Democratic Convention that earned him public admiration. He used the address to initiate the ‘politics of hope,’ a theme that formed the center of most of his speeches.

“A little bit earlier this evening I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain” (para.6). This shows Obama’s magnanimity in victory since he talks about his opponent before his friends without ignoring him; therefore, this demonstrates that he can be a good leader.

Next, Obama began a sequence a thanks and he created tension by not naming the person until the end, “I want to thank my partner in this journey” (para.6). He employed this strategy in giving thanks to Joe Biden and his wife, Michelle Obama. Further, the mention of his daughters and telling them that they “have earned a new puppy” depicts him as a normal family man who cares for the well-being of his children.

To support his arguments, Obama referred to the remarks of other past great American leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King. He referred to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address by saying, “We are not enemies but friends…Though passion may have strained, and it must not break our bonds of affection “(para. 16). The lines, “the road ahead will be long…we will get there” (para.13) echoes King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech.

The incorporation of these references serves the purpose of instilling hope in the audience since the referred personalities succeeded amidst the difficulties they were facing. This hope is instilled further in the eyes of the crowd by the repetition of his campaign slogan, “Yes we can.” The repetition symbolizes the American Dream that America will eventually succeed amidst the obstacles it faces. The mention of the then 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper is a historical testimony that the impossible is possible.

The victory speech was filled with excellent use of language. There is the simple tricolon of “who still” evident in the introductory paragraph. “The road ahead will be long” (para. 13), is an example of Obama’s use of figurative language to represent the tough way ahead. “When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land” (para. 21) depicts the use assonance in the ‘s’ sound and alliteration in despair, dust and depression.

Further, the president-elect used logos by developing a point-by-point argument of his position, pathos by referring to his deceased grandmother, and ethos by referring to himself as the would-be President of the U.S.

Delivered in an audacious tone, the immediate impression that was left after the speech was that “change had come to America” and everyone was optimistic that the new administration would make changes to the leadership of the sole superpower in the world. Various people commended the speech as a true reflection of the problems that were facing America and the world.

Consequently, most Americans felt proud to have elected Barack Obama as their first African-American president. The speech established the credibility of Obama upon assuming the role of the U.S. president. Based on the speech, many agreed that he has the ability to lead the American people in fulfillment of their goals.

The issues he raised in the speech, among them economic growth, global warming, and Iraq war, have played a pivotal role in defining the policies of his administration. A notable success that he has achieved is instituting policies intended to increase the growth of the U.S. economy. Maybe the long-term effects of these changes will still require more time to be fully realized.

Comparison of the two speeches

It can be said that both the two speeches had a common goal: to instigate for changes to be done for the betterment of life on this world. While President Reagan aimed to free the Germans from the oppression of communism, President-elect Obama’s speech aimed at addressing the problems that were threatening the existence of the United States.

Thus, the skilled orators used various techniques to pass their message to their audience. Nonetheless, in contrast to Obama’s speech, Reagan’s speech was full of humor because of the way he used the native German language in delivering the speech. Obama employed a more serious tone that sent some of his audience to tears. Reagan’s speech did not get as much media attention as Obama’s; it came to the public limelight following the successful destruction of the Berlin wall.

In his speech, Reagan did not mince his words in addressing the issue at hand: “Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” (3). On the other hand, Obama employed a more calm tone in talking to his opponents: “And to those Americans who — whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your President, too” (para. 16).

Interestingly, both the two speeches were filled with hope. Reagan said, “Yet, I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope…”(2) and Obama said, “Our union can be perfected. What we’ve already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow” (para.19).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that President Ronald Reagan’s address at the Brandenburg Gate and President-elect Barrack Obama’s victory’s speech in Chicago, Illinois, were significant in addressing the issues of the time. Even though they were delivered at different times and in different places, the speeches played a pivotal role in effecting important changes that have proved to be beneficial.

Works Cited

Edwards, Lee. The essential Ronald Reagan : a profile in courage, justice, and wisdom. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.

Engel, Jeffrey A. The fall of the Berlin Wall : the revolutionary legacy of 1989. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Fleming, Cynthia G. Yes we did! : from King’s dream to Obama’s promise. Lexington, KY : University Press of Kentucky, 2009. Print.

Metcalfe, Sheldon. Building a speech. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/ Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Obama, Barrack. “President-Elect Victory Speech.” Americanrhetoric.com. American Rhetoric, 4 Nov. 2008. Web. https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/barackobamavictoryspeech.htm

Reagan, Ronald. “Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate.” Americanrhetoric.com. American Rhetoric,12 June 1987. Web. https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/Ronald%20Reagan%20-%20Brandenburg%20Gate%20Address.pdf

Introduction

Ethics is one of the five branches of philosophy that deals with human character and how humans conduct themselves in the society. Since humans have freedom of doing various activities that benefit them, ethics is essential because it defines their character and conduct.

Essentially, ethics systematically assesses human activities with a view of establishing whether they are right or wrong.

In the society where chaos and disorders prevail, ethics offers the appropriate solution because it provides moral values, principles, norms, and ideals, which humans should adhere to as standard practices of human conduct and behavior.

According to Cavico and Mujtaba (2010), the aim of ethics is to understand the epistemology of human conduct and character so that it can define the best ways in which humans can co-exist and attain the real meaning of life.

In this view, ethics enables humans to regulate their conduct and character to be in line with the moral values, norms, ideals, and principles that society cherishes and upholds amidst chaos and confusion.

To define and expound ethics, diverse philosophers have come up with theories and models such as utilitarianism, deontology, pragmatic ethics, and postmodern ethics.

Hence, this term paper seeks to use utilitarian theory and model in assessing whether it is moral for Florida Blue to implement the Obama’s health care reform.

Utilitarian Theory

Utilitarian theory is the dominant ethical theory that philosophers and ethicists apply when analyzing human conduct and character. John Stuart Mill is one of the pioneers and proponents of utilitarian theory.

Fundamentally, utilitarian theory belongs to the category of consequential theories that assess morality basing on the consequences of an action. According to Mill (2010), rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on its consequences rather than the nature of the action.

On this assertion, utilitarian theory rejects the assessment of morality basing on the actions. Hence, utilitarian theory assumes that human actions have no morality in themselves unless assessed using their consequences.

Cavico and Mujtaba (2009) argue that an action is morally right if its consequences are good, and it is morally wrong if its consequences are bad. Hence, the consequences of an action are central in determining if an action is right or wrong.

The utilitarian theory also assesses the degree of morality or the extent to which an action is right or wrong. According to the utilitarian theory, for an action to be morally right, it must generate greatest happiness or pleasure to most people and cause the least pain and harm (Mill, 2010).

In this view, the theory does not only assess the degree of morality basing on the consequences, but also assesses morality basing on the number of people that gain happiness or experience pain.

The consequence of an action may be good, but it does benefit the greatest number of people in terms of happiness and pleasure.

In the examination of utilitarian theory, Cavico and Mujtaba (2009) state that the consequence of an action should be good and beneficial to most people in the society.

In this view, utilitarian theory requires consideration of action’s consequence and the number of people that experience happiness or pain.

Thus, an action is morally right if its consequences are good and beneficial to most stakeholders, and it is morally wrong if its consequences are bad and harmful to most stakeholders.

Utilitarian Model and Utilitarian Analysis

The use of the utilitarian model in the assessment of human actions provides a quantitative way of analyzing morality. The utilitarian model apportions numerical values to goodness and badness of an action’s consequences.

The goodness of an action has a positive scale of 1 to 5 (1 to 5) while the badness of an action has a negative scale of 1 to 5 (-1 to -5). Zero is an intermediate value on the scale, which shows that actions’ consequence is neither good nor bad to a specific stakeholder.

The utilitarian model quantifies the degree of pleasure and pain, which are consequences of an action (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Therefore, the term paper utilizes the utilitarian model in establishing if it is moral for Florida Blue to implement the Obama’s Heath care plan.

1. The act that the term paper seeks to evaluate using the utilitarian model is whether it is moral for Florida Blue to implement the Obama’s health care reform.
2. The following are the stakeholders that the implementation of the Obama’s health care reform affects, both directly and indirectly.

The government

The foreseeable good is that the government will improve general health of the population, and thus enhances the health of the nation. However, the foreseeable bad consequence is that the cost necessary to sustain health care reforms may not be sustainable in the end.

Health care system

The foreseeable good of the health care reforms is that the health care system will offer improved quality of healthcare services (Rosenbaum, 2011). Given that quality of healthcare services depend on many factors, the foreseeable bad is that the quality of care may deteriorate with time.

Florida Blue

The foreseeable good of the health care reform in Florida Blue is that it will increase the number of patients and thus improve its growth. However, Florida Blue may not be able to satisfy the demands of the patients.

Insurance companies

If Florida Blue implements health reforms, the foreseeable good is that it will provide a competitive environment for insurance companies. The foreseeable bad consequence is that the insurance companies will increase insurance premiums.

Healthcare providers and working environment

The foreseeable good of the health reforms is that it will improve competence, remuneration packages, and the working environment of healthcare providers. Since the number of patients will increase in Florida Blue, the foreseeable bad consequence is that healthcare providers will have to perform extra duties to serve all patients.

Patients

The foreseeable good among patients is that they will receive quality services that they have been unable to afford. Nevertheless, the foreseeable bad consequence is that the quality of healthcare services offered to patients may deteriorate with time.

Citizens and society

Given that health care reforms legally require citizens to take health insurance cover, the foreseeable good is improved health status and the lifespan of the people. However, the foreseeable bad consequence is that the cost of health insurance may increase and become unaffordable to many people.

Quantification of Good and Bad Consequences

Conclusion

The assessment of the act of implementing the Obama’s health care reform in Florida shows that it has more good than bad.

Since the good consequences of implementing Obama’s health care reform outweigh the bad consequences, from the utilitarian perspective, it implies that the act is moral in Florida Blue.

The utilitarian analysis shows that Florida Blue should implement health reforms to improve healthcare services that it provides to all stakeholders.

References

Cavico, F., & Mujtaba, B. (2010). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation of Effective Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship (2^nd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Mill, J. (2010). Utilitarianism. New York: Broadview Press.

Rosenbaum, S. (2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice. Public Health Reports, 126(1), 130-135.

A rhetorical analysis is “a form of close reading that uses principles of communication, and it is aimed at evaluating” how an author engages an audience using a text (Johnstone, 2008, p. 23). A rhetorical analysis can be prepared for many kinds of texts, shows, movies, and other forms of communicative media with the goal of making statements to the targeted audience. This paper presents a rhetorical analysis of Barack Obama’s March 18 speech.

The ” Barack Obama’s March 18 speech is one of the most important speeches ” that focused on race (Clark, 2008, para. 1). It is interesting to learn that the orator has been willing to say things in public regarding race. Thus, the thesis statement of the speech revolved around making the US a better nation by fighting racism and promoting co-existence of people from different races.

The context of the speech was reassuring white voters that they did not stand a chance to lose anything based on a statement of a renown Black American Pastor. At the time the speech was presented to the audience, America was preparing to hold presidential elections. Obama was keen on being elected, but he felt that the statement of the Rev.

Wright could negatively impact his election bid. The address could not have come at a better time, bearing in mind that there was a heated debate on electing the first Black American to the presidency. It is worth to note that the current president of the US is known for his excellent communication skills.

As mentioned above, Obama focused on addressing white voters so that they could be sure that they could not be segregated from Black Americans when Obama could be elected. He achieved his objective by combining various communication principles, which were selected and applied to the address in an efficient manner. One of the best rhetorical patterns used by Obama was an allusion, which he used throughout the speech.

For example, he started the address with “We the people” to create a union with the audience (Clark, 2008, para. 7). It is notable that he used quotes from the US Constitution, which showed that he understood and respected the American Constitution. Another form of allusion is demonstrated in how he mentioned the word “democracy” that implied that he acknowledged the importance of upholding democracy in the nation.

The pattern of parallelism is also evident in the speech. It has been “argued by some scholars that the pattern of communication” helps orators to make different messages memorable (Johnstone, 2008, p. 87). In this context, equal terms are applied to communicate similar ideas. In one instance, Obama used “five parallel phases in a collection of 43 words” (Clark, 2008, para. 12). The speech used the pattern of autobiography to reflect on the challenges that are faced by the ordinary people.

However, Obama did it better by reminding the audience that he came from a Black American family, yet he did not despise some people based on their races. The argument proposed by the orator in the address appealed to the audience and informed people that he was also a Black American who was keen on protecting the US Constitution and maintaining institutions that promote democracy in the nation. The speech worked effectively since he received votes from people of all races to become president of the US.

References

Clark, R. P. (2008). Why It Worked: A Rhetorical Analysis of Obama’s Speech on Race. Web.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

The political world is built on numerous speeches, ideas, and suggestions. American history is full of amazing speeches from people who wanted to achieve particular purposes, who failed to achieve something important, and who demonstrated unbelievable power and faith in a safe future. One of the speeches that enriched American history was delivered on March 18, 2008.

The author of the speech was then-Senator Barack Obama, who is now the President of the United States of America. Obama’s speech was a response to the spike demonstrated by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright concerning the racial aspect of American life.

In his speech, Barack Obama makes a magnificent attempt to address the issues of racial dishonesty and white privilege that is still observed in America, to describe the “black anger” that is inherent to the vast majority of American citizens, and to evaluate how controversial Wright’s position actually is; the success of the speech is one of the most powerful proofs that Obama raises the questions which bother the country and prevent nations’ appropriate development.

Barack Obama’s speech is a unique collection of ideas which attract America’s attention from the very first lines. To demonstrate how serious his intentions are, Obama begins his speech with the bright message that “we the people… to form a perfect union” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 1).

With the help of this phrase, Obama focuses on several significant aspects: he deserves the right to be a member of the chosen community; he believes that America is a powerful and almost perfect country; he does not find it necessary to divide himself from the rest of society, and he has something to say and to do to improve the situation and make living conditions better.

One of the most evident components of his speech is a retrospective review of the past and his roots. It is very important to develop a strong body the context of which is properly understood by young people who want to consider their present affairs and by mature people who prefer to appreciate their past to improve future.

“I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same, and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 6).

In these lines, he tries to explain how sensitive he can be to people and how confident he should become to attract their attention. Each word is properly chosen, each adjective and adverb supports the necessary verb, and even punctuation attracts attention.

The frequently discussed issue in the speech is connected to the idea of racial dishonesty under which the American society should live. He admits the truth about “how hungry the American people were for this message of unity” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 10). The choice of vocabulary is a captivating aspect to focus on: Obama makes uses of human instincts and the feeling of hunger. Food is an integral part of this life, and people may feel the hunger in case they lack food.

However, in the speech, the nation is a hunger for unity. It proves that Obama is brave enough to underline America’s weakness but still to explain how it is possible to cope with this hunger. It is not the time to define who is “too black” or “not black enough” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 11); but it is time to define what is crucial in this life and what can help society to live better lives.

Obama also introduces the idea of black anger: “it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 34).

He is brave enough to admit the existence of the anger; and what is more important, he is not afraid to enumerate the roots of the anger as well as spread discontents concerning the conditions people live under. There is no need to mind human and national fears, but it is necessary to concentrate on the way of how people need to live.

One of the most significant reasons why Obama introduces the speech was the controversial ideas offered by his former pastor, the Reverend Wright. The courage of the former Senator is evident when he decides to admit his connection to a person who upsets the balance of American unity.

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.” (Obama, 2008, paragraph 14).

There is no need to hide and be ashamed of something. It is much more important to admit the truth, define the mistakes, and choose the way that helps to improve the situation.

Barak Obama’s speech was so bright and strong that, within a short period, it was available through all media sources like the Internet or some famous magazines. The main idea of the speech is to explain to people how strong the American nation should be to overcome any possible difficulty and challenge. Within this speech, Obama underlines the issues which worry a lot of people and helps to define the main ideology of this life: to respect each member of society.

Works Cited

Obama, Barak. “A More Perfect Union.” National Constitution Center. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2008.

Introduction

Language is that set of symbolic expressions known only to the human race. Most authors believe that culture is the most important factor that makes humans what they are and distinguishes them from the animal world. And inside culture, language, some pretend, is the most important factor influencing men’s life. It was the written usage of language that set the civilization to evolve at its heights. Language is spoken but also not spoken. By “not spoken” I mean other forms of language communication like written signs, different sets of symbols, etc.

Rhetoric is a part of the language. It is a usage of language. Refereeing to the Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, rhetoric is: “The art of speaking or writing effectively as a means of communication or persuasion” (“rhetoric”).

The word is derived from the ancient Greek eiro, which means “I say.” In its broadest sense, rhetoric concerns human discourse. This is the primary meaning of the word. Later we will see some secondary meanings that are more important to us in this essay. From the scholars, Aristotle was the first ancient philosopher to dedicate some time to the study of this issue. For him, rhetoric was the art of practical wisdom and decision-making. He saw it as a counterpart to logic and philosophical thinking. But Aristotle sees it as a branch of politics. For Aristotle, rhetoric was used by politicians to achieve their goals. Often they used it positively, but often they used it to manipulate the people (“Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, par. 1).

So we come to the second meaning of the word as shown by the Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary. Rhetoric is also:

“a: skill in the effective use of speech;

b: a type or model of language or speech ;

c: insincere or grandiloquent language;” (“rhetoric”)

as we can see from the definition rhetoric is used often in speeches. This use is done to achieve some intentions that the speaker, user of rhetoric, has. This is why it is a “useful weapon” for politicians.

Rhetoric in political issues has been used as long ago as in Ancient Greece. It is the language that the sophists used to convince the population about their arguments. They used it to pass laws that they thought would be good for society. They used it as a weapon of gaining power and respect among the people. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is composed of three essential parts:

1. Ethos;

Which is the standing of the speaker or the writer. It has to do with his character, how much does he know the issue he is presenting, is he familiar with it and how do other consider him: virtuous? With high moral standards, etc. (“Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, par. 4)

2. Pathos;

This is the emotional part of rhetoric. The speaker (or writer) in his speech appeals to the emotional, irrational, part of the human beings that are listening, or reading, him. It has to do with the ways he uses words, both written and spoken, to generate emotions to the other with aim to gain support for his thesis. He tries to “touch the hearts” of the listeners by his words and create strong emotional response in support of his view. (“Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, par. 5)

3. Logos;

This is the rational part of rhetoric. You cannot gain support from the people just by appealing to their hearts and leave aside their minds. So the writer, or speaker, develops logical arguments relating to the issue that is presenting in support of its standing. This, along with the emotional part of the rhetoric is used to convince people that you are doing the right thing and that they should follow you. (“Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, par. 6).

Lastly, I want to say that when a person uses rhetoric, he uses it by expressing a personification, a metaphor, or an analogy. The first is the representation of a thing, basically a non-human, as human. The analogy is when you compare a certain situation, or thing, with another situation, or thing. These two have similar characteristics to each other. A metaphor is a pervasive feature of language. As J. R. Searle puts it, we use metaphor to talk about the world in both familiar and innovative ways, and in contexts ranging from everyday conversation to literature and scientific theorizing (1979: 6). So, the metaphor in rhetoric is used to appeal mostly to the heart of the people, their emotional and irrational part. The analogy is used by the logos when constructing an argument and making it easier for the people that are listening to you to understand what you mean. The personification is used both to make appeal to the emotional part of the people in order to make your adversary look “ugly” or you can use it to make yourself look like a “hero”. For example you can personify yourself as Superman or as Savior, etc. or you can use it to personify the other as “pig with lipstick”, etc.

The rhetoric of Barack Obama

As we can see from the introduction, rhetoric is very useful to politicians. They can use it as an art, or a weapon, to convince us of the thing they are doing, or that they intend to do. In a democracy, it is essential to have the approval of the people you are representing and governing. And rhetoric helps politicians do this. it is not that rhetoric is “a property” only of politicians. It can be used by all of us. Everyone can use rhetoric to try and persuade his friends, family, or relatives that this, or that, that he wants to be done is good for them also. But politicians can send their message to large groups of people. They make speeches that affect millions of people. So when they use rhetoric, they use it on such a scale that many of us will never have the opportunity to do in our lifetime. This is the case even for the rhetoric used by President-elect Barack Obama during this year. As we all know he has been campaigning since the primaries inside the Democratic Party with Senator Hilary Clinton, and after that with Republican Party candidate McCain.

During his almost one-year-long campaign, he has used rhetoric several times. He has also been labeled as “the new Cicero” by the British national newspaper, The Guardian (“Barack Obama: The new Cicero”, par. 1). It is interesting to see how Mr. Obama has developed his rhetoric and where has he shown it. We will take a couple of speeches to analyze. The first is the speech that senator barrack Obama gave in his electoral visit in Sarasota, Florida, on October 30, 2008. The second is the speech that he gave election night, November 4, when it was clear that he was going to be the next president of the United States.

I will try to do that by seeing what are the pathos, ethos and logos of the speeches he gave. Senator Obama has presented himself during all of his campaign as a man of the people, from the people and for the people. He has repeatedly pointed out that the people of the United States need change and that he is the right person that can bring this change to America. But first, he had to convince people that they do need that change. So he “Florida, I have just two words for you: five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, eight years of failed policies from George Bush, and twenty-one months of a campaign that has taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from change in America.” (“Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL”, par. 1).

We can see how Mr. Obama is using the metaphor, “from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California”, to appeal to the patriotism of the people who are hearing him. All of them are part of this country, this beautiful country. He is trying to persuade the people that change is coming and they need no more be worried about their present situation. This is an appeal to the emotional part of the crowd. They have to participate in the change that anyway is coming. Here is another emotional appeal to the people of Sarasota:

“Most of all, I knew the American people were a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are.” (“Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL”, par. 7).

He is appealing to the generosity and sacrifice of the American people. As we can see these are irrational parts that Senator Obama was trying to touch in the hearts of the people. They have to believe in him that he is going to make a real change in politics. His speech is connected to the idea that the present party and its representatives in power have brought the country to ruin. So now we have : “Folks who can’t pay their medical bills, or send their kids to college, or save for retirement can’t afford to take a back seat to CEOs and Wall Street banks for four more years.” (“Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL”, par. 13).

Here the logos of the speech begin to appear. Mr. Obama not only appeals to the heart of the people by using different metaphors about the situation the country is in, but he uses even logical arguments to convince those who are listening to him.

“We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Businesses and families can’t get credit. Home values are falling. Pensions are disappearing. It’s gotten harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month.” (“Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL”, par. 14)

Here he is presenting argumentation and facts about the economic situation of the country. This time he is trying to persuade the people of Sarasota and elsewhere that his opponents have let the country go toward crisis. He concludes by using both ethos and logos about the current situation:

“And just today, we learned that the GDP, or Gross Domestic Product – a key indicator economists use to measure the health of our economy – has actually fallen for the first time this year. That means we’re producing less and selling less – so our economy is actually shrinking. And we saw the largest decline in consumer spending in 28 years as wages failed to keep up with the rising cost of living, and folks have been watching every penny and tightening their belts. Now, this didn’t happen by accident. Our falling GDP is a direct result of eight years of the trickle-down, Wall Street first/Main Street last policies that have driven our economy into a ditch.” (“Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL”, par. 15).

Another rhetorical speech of now President-Elect Barack Obama is that of the Election Night, in Chicago.

List of references

1. “rhetoric.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. Web.
2. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Web.
3. Higgins, Charlotte. “Barack Obama: The new Cicero”. The Guardian. 2008. Web.
4. Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL. The Obama/Biden Official Website. 2008.
5. Searle, J. R.Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979.