Distinguished guests, comrades and friends, we are standing at yet another turning point. This ceremony signifies the end of an era, and the beginning of another one. It is another opportunity for us to remember and pledge our commitments to our core values. Our presence here shows our ever-bearing need and effort to keep going towards the future. It is a symbol of the connection between our past deeds and our future plans. And in all this, I wish to thank everyone involved in the smooth running of this transition.
Before you all, I have sworn the timeless oath that was put in place by our forebearers. By this, I have reaffirmed my new responsibility to oversee, for the time that the state and God will grant me, any and all significant work aimed at preserving and advancing our national legend. The challenges facing us may continue to change, but in it all, the unity of our nation must be upheld at all costs. Values and principles developed through generations of wisdom must be sustained and driven onwards.
We are the product of an eventful past. Our value system has been created out of necessity, shaped by war and strife, strengthened by discipline, and kept alight by the promise of a new dawn. That new dawn is now upon us. We hold now the torch lights to create the way forward, writing new history as we move along. With your approval and corporation, we can take giant strides towards the future, harnessing each and every individual gift and talent that is within the borders of this great nation. We can reinforce that vital sense of worth that is carried within each and every soul.
All through, let us not forget where we’ve come from, and how far we’ve come. We can not make any significant strides, if we cast away our past, and forget its lessons. For, like the best system anywhere, our past is a record of our best decisions as well as our worst mistakes. Let the past successes be seen as steps on the ladder of progress. And let the mistakes be analyzed and avoided in the future. Let us utilize this marvelous gift we have of learning, adapting, innovating, and changing for the good of all. Let the future generations look back upon our era with adoration and pride.
Now, more than ever, our humanity is on the test. Our relentless quest for success has awarded us with much more than we bargained for. We now have in our possessions enough brainpower and technological facilitation to make the whole nation, and even the world at large, a unified village. Yet at the same time, these advancements can also be used to destroy the entire human race, should we choose to. We hold our destinies, one way or the other, in our hands. Let us not forget then, that with great power, come great responsibility.
Comrades, we have a future to shape, let friend and foe alike know that we will continue to press forward, despite the odds. No challenge will stall our collective determination. In this, we will work with all parties that choose to share our vision. But we will suppress any forces that become barriers to our quest. We can not afford any relapse on the progress we’ve made so far. Far from it, let us be willing to bear any burden and pay any price to keep on the road to prosperity.
Finally, as we set our sights on our future goals, let us keep in mind our place in the universal system, for we are the result of our unique history and a necessary link to the future. Above all, we are but the instruments of our Creator, and should forever seek His guidance. God bless this nation, God Bless you all.
Thank you.
Sources
Associated press Text of President Barrack Obama’s Inaugural Address 2009. Web.
In the book The Breakthrough, Gwen Ifill addresses the political background and what part the women and men the author calls “the breakthrough politicians” or what the editor of the New Yorker David Remnick refers to as “the Joshua generation” who happen to be the offsprings of the civil rights pressure groups the role they played in the 2008 US presidential election as well as the prospects of US politics. These breakthrough politicians were born in the 1960s and ’70s, and during their time, they were brought up in a world that was shaped by access rather than denial. As the book reveals, these individuals came from middle-class families, attended best campuses, and are more likely to get into politics via business than activism. (pg 66-69).
Ifill’s book had for long been in the works and surprisingly centers less on Obama than on the group of up-coming Black-American politicians to whom she argues that they were changing the politics in America. This paper looks into the causes that brought about the coming up of the Breakthrough politicians as stated in Ifill’s book. The author rightly discharges the belief that the US has turned out to be a “post-racial” country, but admits the insight of David Axelrod, Obama’s adviser that “the aspect of this race is that it did not take the vital role that some individuals thought it would.” Still, Axelrod shows Obama’s “race-neutral approach as merely “a role of math”: i.e., electing a Black-American in a nation where that particular race make up 13% of the nation’s population needed an aspirant who appealed to the non-black electors.
The other vital issue that was addressed was the long-overdue African-American issues of discrimination, where blacks were not entitled to the same opportunities as their white counterparts. Poverty was another issue that was addressed. Citing his own father’s background, Obama promised to level the playing field so that every American, whether black or white has access to proper medical care, and at the very least should have some form of education for a better future. All these issues are no longer a secret, and every American is well aware of them. As a matter of fact, Obama promised to do something about them during his campaign. Now that he is the president, everyone hopes that he will keep his promise. As stated by Ifill, “As myriad new African-American leaders have realized that the key to breaking through often only lies in such an intersect putting the white people at ease without estranging blacks.” (pg 106-107).
The Breakthrough looks at the generational change, class as well as race which played a major role in the last general elections in the US. The book has perspective as well as depth which to most people thought they understood but not to this extent. The Breakthrough happens to be on the forefront in trying to help people to comprehend democracy in America and its future, especially in the current Obama regime. It looks at the modern politics as well as its basic rules. Without being biased, the author is not only persuasive but provocative as well making the book much bigger than the man of the moment Obama. It helps the reader better understand the American political power, especially in the black community when it concentrates more on politicians with African-American background and how far they have come.
The other great aspect of this book is the way it portrays the American Dream that is so often said but seldom achieved. It’s after the last election of Obama to the highest office of the land that many started to believe again that anything is possible in America. That’s why Obama’s election was such a monumental occasion in the history of American politics. The Breakthrough answered those who still doubted or questioned democracy in America, and because of this, there is no doubt that there is going to be better racial relations in general as a result of this. That said, it’s not going to be easy, nor is the battle over just yet. There is still a lot to be done through the hard part is half won as a result in change of attitude in majority of the electorate.
Ifill’s book is structured slackly around some well-known individuals; Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker, an all-American taut and with degrees from Oxford, Stanford and Yale, has led over an bizarre lessening in his city’s crime rate; the second one is Deval Patrick who is the governor of Massachusetts, he happens to be a Harvard-learned lawyer from South Side Chicago, who turned to be the state’s first Black-American governor. To the author’s credit, she states that past these personalities, drilling downwards to the un-famous Black-American politicians on the local and state levels; we meet the president of Atlanta City Council, Lisa Borders, who fights the allegations that she is not black enough. During a public debate Lisa Agued the following; “I was told to go to school and get my education. Then I was told to timely pay my bills and in full. I was later told to give back to the society.. Precisely where did I lose my African-Americaness?”(pg 155)
In her book she also gives an instance of a South Carolina State official Bakari Sellers who sees more cohesion than disparity among his disadvantaged constituents. Ifill states that “If one is poor and white or poor and black in South Carolina, then they both face essentially the same issues,” which are inequity in education and health care services. Ifill’s argument is clear that while Obama is the most evident member of the breakthrough cohort, he is barely alone and that the bench is deep. (Pg, 225).
The book argues that the new cohort of African-American politicians gives a double challenge to the US politics at large, and also to the African-American political structure in particular. She also writes, “equipped with their University degrees, their background in the private sector and also their own schemes of how to attain and hold on to political power; these young politicians often find that the major hurdles to political leadership exist at home,”.
In the book, it turns out that the Moses age band, what a history professor at the Spelman College, William Jelani Cobb calls “civil rights gerontocracy,” will not relinquish power without a fight. Through the narrative, things get nasty, especially when a novice declines to “wait for his turn” and confronts a black incumbent. The blunder that breakthrough young politicians make, as Sharpton tells Ifill, is that they assume they can “get a shot at the civil rights control and we aren’t going to shoot back.” (Pg, 89).
The implementation of policy of this new political movement is potentially huge. According to the author (Ifill), the breakthrough politicians somehow rely more on practical political alliances than on racial cohesion, mainly when they run for national and state positions. Even as their elders were voted in “highly drawn Congressional districts which make the most of the black vote,” they count Latino and white voters in challenges outside those districts. As noted by Manning Marable, a professor at the Columbia University that the fraction of Black-American state representatives who won election in districts dominated by whites rose from 16% to 30%, and that was between the years 2001 and 2008. (pg, 231)
The fact that the US president Obama received 43% of the white and 67% of the Latino vote (which is 2% points more than what John Kerry had in 2004) makes Ifill doubt whether gerrymandering is still needed. In her book Ifill also states that if white people will vote for African-Americans, then need for ornately designed Congressional districts that exploit the black vote will reduce accordingly,” (Pg, 225).
Also in her book, Ifill uses the example of Axelrod’s “race-neutral” approach which was succeeded in the year 2006, when his client Deval Patrick turn out to be the first black governor of Massachusetts, after winning 56% of the vote in one of the states where Black-Americans hardly make 7% percent of the total population. It clearly worked in the year 2006 race to the Washington mayoral office in which Adrian Fenty happened to be the first mayor to win in every single constituency in a city that was racially polarized.
The Breakthrough politicians pledge to a procedure obsessed as much by demographics as by fate. Whenever population shifts occur, which is brought about by affirmative action, fair housing laws, and landmark school integration rulings, then the political power is challenged as well. However, in this book I feel fails to consider another advance that is likely to hurry their advancement. Mergers that shift in demographics with the savvy political approach of Obama and company; are likely that the Joshua’s age group may become the crucial force in this new age of US politics.
Work Cited
Gwen Ifill. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Doubleday Publishing, Washington DC. 2009.
The fascinating contrasts between President Obama’s and Sen. Cruz’s Hanukkah (Chanukah) greetings by David Bernstein compares President Obama’s and Sen. Cruz’s salutation messages regarding Hanukkah. Both greetings address Jews and non-Jews, acknowledging the importance of the festival. The speeches reveal that upholding the celebration is an important event in commemorating the justice of redemption of Jerusalem and rededication of the second temple at the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. Although both appeals have a similar aim, speakers’ language reflects their political parties’ opposing worldviews. The author successfully identifies the difference between the targeted groups and used word choice; however, he does not present any hard evidence.
President Obama and Senator Cruz express their solidarity in the Hanukkah festival marking, which is eight days long. Nevertheless, Bernstein finds out that the two messages are different in language usage, organization, clarity, among other elements. For instance, Obama uses more universalistic language, avoiding mention of God, and addresses all Jews and non-Jews worldwide who struggle for social justice. On the contrary, Senator Cruz appeals to more conservative Jewish people, thanks to Lord for the assistance, and stresses the need to protect Jews against their enemies. Such differences disclose the party affiliation of both speakers that has a contrasting worldview.
In terms of ethos, David Bernstein is a law professor who has been teaching students at George Mason University since 1995. He is an expert in constitutional history and the Volokh Conspiracy’s legal blog contributor. Moreover, Bernstein has already published several books, dozens of think tank studies, opinions, and articles (Ruszkiewicz & Dolmage, 2012). Although the author is not an expert in public speeches, it seems that he has enough knowledge, experience, and credibility to share his opinion regarding two Hanukkah greetings. As a historian, he knows enough about Judaism and aware of the Jews’ thorny path to social justice and safety. It helped him compare the meanings of words and grasp contrasting messages of Obama and Cruz.
The structure of Obama’s greeting more appeals to logic than one given by Cruz. The former president makes clear and concise statements conveying the relatively shorter speech. For that reason, his message is more visible and comprehensible for the bigger audience in contrast to Senator’s one. The use of straightforward wording and precise terminology by Obama contrasts to Cruz’s discourse that involves historical events and religious leaders. For instance, the former says, “It’s a chance to reflect on the triumph of liberty over tyranny, the rejection of persecution, and on the miracles that can happen even in our darkest hours” (Bernstein, 2015). These lines just show Obama’s understanding of the festival in a highly concise manner that reveals a deep engagement with logos. On the contrary, Senator Cruz’s speech is based on an appeal to emotions.
Senator Cruz focuses on creating an emotional response to the religion and history of Jewish people. His greeting aims to elicit the audience’s emotions in contrast to the logical and humble language used by Obama. To fulfill this aim, he resorts to God mentioning his immense assistance to Jews supporting their justice struggle. For instance, Cruz proclaims: “As the Talmud teaches God delivered many into the hands of a few….” (Bernstein, 2015). He also names all of the current threats to Jews, including the BDS movement, radical Islam terror, and anti-Semitic attacks. It evokes powerful emotions in the audience as they recall recent events of oppression or intolerance. On the contrary, President Obama even avoids mentioning a particular evil force Maccabees should be protected from.
Both President Obama and Sen. Cruz delivered speeches dedicated to recognizing the Hanukah festival observed by Jews in commemorating their deliverance and justice. Bernstein analyzed those greetings and spotted the main differences in politicians’ worldviews. Obama uses clear, sort, and general terms in his speech. At the same time, Cruz hints at the involvement of supernatural being in the Jew’s victory and justice, uses a bit longer paragraphs which are harder to remember. These messages explore ethos, pathos, and logos in different ways.
The best proof of the idea that history is a succession of recurring similar events is the Tea Party that bears resemblance to the Boston Tea Party as they share a seemingly common aim: to protest against taxation imposed on citizens. However, the activity of the party has many proponents as well as opponents. “Marc Cooper is the director for Annenberg Digital News at the Annenberg School of communication at USC and is an authentic writer and also a political analyst” (Cooper para. 14). This short description of the author of the article suggests his being efficient and informed about the topic he is discussing. His editorial article under the following title: “Anti-Obama taxpayer tea parties steeped in insanity” was published in the Los Angeles Times on 15th April, 2009. In this article, Cooper’s main aim is to convince his readers that the Tea Party movement is an opposition movement with neither a firm basis nor logical arguments for their stand and protests. Cooper argues that the movement uses false claims addressed to the federal government for its ill intended agenda. The main purpose of Cooper’s article is to throw light on the hypocritical and erring nature of the Tea Parties’ protests by revealing to the audience the nature of “the beef behind today’s protests” (Cooper para. 7). The author’s eloquence and skillful usage of influential rhetorical strategies and his adherence to ethos, pathos, and logos, Aristotle’s appeals, makes the analyzed article a powerful piece of rhetoric. Thus, Copper’s article accomplishes its purpose successfully: the author uses all skills of a journalist and political analyst in “directing the sentiments of [his] readers” against the Tea Party Movement (Meltzer 56).
Since the audience of the Los Angeles Times is rather wide and diverse, including the readers that belong to different age groups, the author pays great attention to the target audience of his article. He does not address it directly but he tries to convince all of them of his rightness. He addresses the older generation, focusing on those readers who follow the changes and major events in political life of the USA, mentioning significant events that took place in the political arena in the past. At the same time, the journalist tries to make an impact on the youth with the help of the use of specific Internet-related terms that are clear for them, like “to burn up your bandwidth” (Cooper para. 1). In addition, the writer makes use of short detailed sentences to avoid misinterpretation and loss of meaning.
Cooper, as a person who earns his living with the help of rhetoric, is evidently aware of the importance of pathos in the art of persuasion. The author’s appeal to the audience’s feelings and emotions is successful due to apt choice of vocabulary. First, Cooper makes use of vocabulary that helps him to show the tension in society. This becomes possible due to such phrases as “The Web is buzzing”, “rash of tea parties” (Cooper para. 1, 9). As for the choice of vocabulary, it also serves the purpose of reflecting the author’s personal point of view. Thus, Cooper does his best to use the editorial to show his “blatant opinion” (Meltzer 56). That is evident due to emotional vocabulary that conveys the author’s irritation provoked by Tea Party Movement and this use of emotionally colored vocabulary creates pathos of the editorial as if the author tried to infect his audience with his feelings. The bright examples of emotionally colored words are “collective insanity”, “chilling” (Cooper para. 4).
One of the brightest rhetorical strategies of the author of the analyzed editorial is the use of words synonymic or related to tea in order to show irony and contempt towards the participants of Tea Parties Movement. Cooper uses such words as “caffeinated” “to throw … a Tea Party”, and “to dump Earl Grey into Santa Monica Bay” (Cooper para. 1, 6, 9). All these phrases show senselessness of the movement and the author makes it the object of derision.
The opening paragraph of the editorial demonstrates the author’s resorting to the rhetorical device of irony. He creates a false impression of the recipe that turns out to be bitter irony that is aimed at the people who want to “throw an anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Party” (Cooper para. 1). The journalist makes an allusion to Black Helicopter Alert and Obama’s support of “One-World-Government” (Cooper para. 1). He suggests buying a tube of glue and as the author mentions a hobby store at the beginning of the article, a reader might suppose that glue is needed to create something. However, it turns out that glue is needed for a person who wants to throw a Tea Party to sniff. Thereby, Cooper hints at mental instability of the participants of the movement or at their intoxication that is similar to drug intoxication. Politi interprets this idea of Cooper in the same way, he states that Cooper “struggles to understand what on earth all the people who throw ‘an anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Party’ are smoking” (para. 10).
As for the overall tone of the editorial, it is wrathful and even sarcastic. This can be proven by the above mentioned example of direct insult addressed to the proponents of the Tea Party Movement by comparing them to drug addicts. However, the author goes even further, he claims that those people who support the movement are insane. This is first shown in the title of the article: “Anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Parties steeped in insanity”. The use of the word “steep” shows that the situation is dangerous and even chronic already. The author is successful in his attempt to show his rage as one of the proponents of the movement calls his editorial “insulting” (Hillyer para. 1).
Still, pathos is not enough to sound persuasive. It is necessary to appeal to those readers, who are skeptical. This requires the use of logos, one of three main appeals formulated by Aristotle. In order to use reasoning for those readers who tend to question what they hear, Cooper resorts to the use of allusions to the past events that took place on the political arena of American society in the near past. He draws a parallel or compares the current movement with senseless events “when a $19.95 video proving Bill Clinton was a sort of serial killer went viral” and when they made an attempt to revive “the long-brain-dead Terri Schiavo” (Cooper para. 4).
The author makes use of figurative language to show his ideas, to sustain the reader’s attention, and to sound persuasive. He attracts our attention to the main claim of the article with the help of “the mixed metaphor”, as he himself identifies it: “what’s the beef behind today’s protests” (Cooper para. 7). As soon as he poses the question, he gives an answer to it himself, that there is no sense in the movement. He also makes use of epithets, such as, for example, “outraged, simply infuriated”, “drunken spending” (Cooper para. 9, 10).
As for the structure of the editorial, it also deserves attention as it makes a significant contribution to the rhetoric of the article enabling it to fulfill its main purpose. The opening passage has been mentioned above and the recipe it contains is a very original and thought-provoking beginning of the article. Further, the idea is enforced by the references to past events and the question about beef behind the protests is put in the middle of the article. This is a perfect choice from the point of view of rhetoric as the reader is aware of the author’s view and informed about the situation already. This is why the question makes him/her think about it. Finally, the last paragraph tells us about the politics of Bush and hypocritical attitude of conservatives to it. The final sentence of the article leaves the question unsettled, it gives a reader food for reflection, stating that “bailouts were also initiated by Bush” (Cooper para. 10).
The rhetorical analysis of Cooper’s editorial has proved that the author is an “authentic writer”. The main purpose of showing erroneous and unsubstantiated nature and goals of the Tea Party Movement is proven with the help of logos created with the help of references to the past political experience. However, the article successfully appeals to pathos as it conveys the author’s emotions and it makes a reader think about it. The fact that the style of the article and its manner of presentation will not leave any reader indifferent is the best proof of its succeeding in being a good piece of rhetoric.
Works Cited
Cooper, Mark. “Anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Parties steeped in insanity.” Los Angeles Times. 2009. Web.
Meltzer, Kimberly. Newspaper Endorsements of Political Candidates: Do the Perceptions of Editorial Board Members and Readers Match? The annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA, 2004.
The speech on a memorable occasion of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, a leader of the al-Qa’ida organization, was delivered by Barack Obama on May 1, 2011. The speech revolved around the elimination of the notorious leader of al-Qa’ida, a terrorist organization responsible for many terror attacks worldwide but most famously, 9/11. The message and the purpose of the speech were simple – when united, the US can overcome all the difficulties and punish those who are responsible for threatening national security. The example of Osama Bin Laden, one of the most notorious terrorists in the US history, served as a good example to the target audience – the global community.
The main accomplishment mentioned in the speech was that he was eliminated even though Bin Laden was on the run for ten years after 9/11. The weakening of the al-Qa’ida organization was set as one of the top priorities of Barack Obama, and within this speech, he turned attention to it several times. Barack Obama, as a skilled politician, had a global appeal worldwide and personally for me, while once again proving his competencies as the US President.
The speech itself can be considered as well-organized, starting with the hook of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and then continuing into the details, brief history, and reminder of the horrors of 9/11. The closing of the speech goes a bit emotional, with an urge to ensure unity and protect the soil of the US from future threats. In the speech, Barack Obama used mixed types of language, combining long and short sentences, academic and emotional structure, which, in my opinion, aimed at getting a proper balance between emotions and the sense of revenge, at one side, and cold-blooded calculations and years of work of intelligence services, at the other. Combining it with timely pauses and effective stance, the message clearly resonated in the audience – including officials from the White House and millions of Americans watching the speech on the screens. Overall, the former president appeared to be trustworthy and decisive, thus accomplishing the goal of the address – to reassure the citizens of the national strength and frighten the enemies. To conclude, we can consider this speech as a good example of weighted but at the same time pompous and threatening speech regarding the issue of national security.
Policy is the leading power in the modern world. Having obtained the great importance, now it influences souls and minds of the people all over the world. Rhetoric, however, is the main weapon of the policy. The leading politicians cannot ignore such a powerful remedy in the war for the electorate. That is why nowadays, every self-respecting politician should have the deep knowledge of the rhetoric and all rhetorical devices in order to make his speeches sound convincing. Barak Obama is one of the politicians of that kind. Having the great power concentrated in his arms, he should accept the unabated attention to his person. His every world is analyzed by the thousands of people that is why he should be especially caring about what to say. The good example of his oratory can be found in his famous election speech in Chicago. Understanding the importance of the event, as “it is hard to imagine a more culturally significant event in the history of our country than the election of an African American president” (Auger para. 3), he had to do his best. The speech was delivered soon after the announcement of Obamas election as a president of the USA. Obama was giving a speech in front of the thousands of his electors, however, addressing not only them, but the whole American nation. The new elected president was not only saying thank you to all his supporters, he also described the common state of the USA, outlining the future policy and making some historical parallels. The main message of the speech was clearly understood – the president outlined his further steps in the development of the country, he would make. The place and the time were chosen excellently, because people, being in the state of euphoria after the victory of their candidate, were not scared by some troubling signs in Obamas speech, accepted the content at once. The speech was not the improvisation, of course, as the times of the spontaneously proclaimed speeches had already passed. That is why every paragraph was thoroughly thought through and conveyed a certain meaning. The great number of different rhetorical devices, used it the speech, helped to achieve the planned effect. One of the most frequently used is, of course, the repetition, including the famous phrase “Yes, We can.” However, it is not the only example. Almost all of the stylistic devices are used here. Barak Obamas winning speech, filled with a great number of contrasts, rhetorical questions, triples and with the usage of the eco effect, is a good example of the benefits of the rhetorical skills in policy.
The speech is very emotional, still it can be divided into two parts – the relatively calm beginning and very strained, patriotic ending, where the orator proclaims the great purpose and the great importance of the USA and American nation in the whole.
The speech is organized into several paragraphs, connected with each other only within the whole speech. They are quite independent and logically completed, one paragraph does not come out from another.
The language of the Obamas speech is rather emotionally evocative. He specially uses keen problems, actual themes or rhetorical questions in order to make people express their emotions, while following his words. Being the experienced orator, Obama knew exactly what words and phrases would trigger the great expression of feelings. From the beginning of his speech he starts evoking people, by espousing the idea of the American dream:
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.(“Full text: Obama’s victory speech” para.1)
In this starting paragraph we can also see the first rhetoric devices that later become widely used in the rest of the speech and which are peculiar for Barak Obamas rhetoric in the whole. First of all it is repetition. The use of the constant recurrence of the pronoun “who” serves for several purposes. First of all it helps to draw rather scattered peoples attention to his words. Constantly using this pronoun, Obama makes an impression of addressing everyone personally, making each person in the crowd subconsciously react to his appeal. The second rhetoric device, peculiar for this speech, and Obamas rhetoric in the whole, is the rhetorical question. The question that does not need any answer is a strong device and it has the great influence on the auditory. Asking the questions, that do not need answers, the speaker achieves the great effect. The audience believes in his words, as if he is saying total truth, which can never be doubted, and these questions just underline it. Obama, with the help of these three rhetorical questions, appeals to the patriotism of the citizens of the USA, making any other emotions insufficient.
One more rhetoric device, Obamas speech is overflowed with, is the triple. There are about 20 triples in this speech. The emotional range of this device is very wide. Using it in the speech he can outline 3 points or touch 3 problematic issues at the same time. From the other hand, all problems and issues, mentioned in these triples, lead to the only thought or conclusion. The illusion of the presence of the other possible versions or problems just conceals the idea, the speaker wants to be heard and remembered. The second paragraph contains the bright example of the usage of these devices – here we can observe the repetition of “It’s the answer…”(“Full text: Obama’s victory speech” para. 2), and not occasionally it is repeated for the three times – we can see another triple in action. However, in this very paragraph, we can see some new rhetoric device introduced – “It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled” (“Full text: Obama’s victory speech” para.3). In that lines Obama widely uses contrast, opposing one group to another, underlining the differences in their representatives, but stressing their common belonging to the USA. By the way, one more triplet can be found here (“Asian, Native American”). Playing on the contrast, Obama wants to underline the national-wide character of the election, and as a result, his national-wide victory.
Of course, we cannot but mention the most famous part of this speech – Obamas famed repetition of the phrase “Yes. We can.” (“Full text: Obama’s victory speech” para.1). This phrase can be described as Obamas motto at that time – “‘Yes We Can’ was a central trope in his bid for the presidency” (Kephart and Rafferty para. 33). Having become more than just a phrase from the speech, it even obtained the symbolic meaning. This repetition was saved for the last part of Obamas speech. Outlining the key points of the American history, the problems and challenges it had to face and achievements it had made, tracing them in the context of the life of 106 years old Ann Nixon Cooper, using analogies and extended anecdote to outline the changes, Obama ends every passage with the optimistic and confirming “Yes. We can”. This way the speech organized, resulted in joining of the auditory to his speech, repeating in chorus his famous words and echoing him. The effect of the thousands of people chanting Obamas words was overwhelming. At the end of the speech everyone staying in front of Obama was sure, that he really can.
Having analyzed Obamas famous speech we should accept the fact that it is a wonderful example of the modern rhetoric and that it has the great influence on the auditory – “That speech before millions of American television viewers generated a resounding outpouring of national support” (Simba para. 3). The usage of each rhetoric device was logically relevant and the effect, produced by the speech, is the good approval of this fact. Having used a lot of rhetorical questions, triples, contrasts, analogies and repetitions, Obama made a great effect on his audience, forcing them to believe, that they had made the right choice. The USA had entered the difficult period, but they would be able to overcome it with dignity, sticking together and forgetting about their differences. Having said not only pleasant things, Obama however, made the public feel totally satisfied and even happy, as they could do everything. Yes, they can.
Works Cited
Auger, Richard W. “Yes, We Can.” Professional School Counseling, 12, 4, (2009), n. pag. Web.
Full text: Obama’s victory speech. 2008. Web.
Kephart, John and Steven Rafferty.”‘Yes We Can’: Rhizomic Rhetorical Agency in Hyper-Modern Campaign Ecologies.” Argumentation and Advocacy 46, 1 (2009),n. pag. Web.
Simba, Malik. “The Obama Campaign 2008. A Historical Overview.” The Western Journal of Black Studies, 33, 3 (2009), n. pag. Web.
Perhaps, in recent human history, no public speaker has generated such immense interest in his speaking style as the present Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama. This essay will attempt an analysis of Barack Obama’s speaking style drawn from an observation of his numerous appearances before the public in the run-up to the forthcoming Presidential elections.
Main body
In this era of 24 hours media coverage and multiple cameras covering every geometric angle, a public speaker must not only be well versed with his speech but should also be able to present a comprehensive persona. Obama’s approach to the speaking venue which ranges from a podium to a basketball court or a community hall gives the first indication of the sort of person he is. He walks in with an easy loping gait which indicates self-confidence and an “I am one of you’ attitude. His dress is carefully chosen for the occasion, not too formal or too flippant. These are important cues for a public speaker because without yet having spoken a word, the audience starts identifying with the speaker.
Obama’s campaign slogan ‘Change we can believe in’ provides a strong emotive cause with which supporters, fence-sitters, and even opponents identify. During the course of his speech, Obama alludes to this slogan a number of times to drive home the point that he is the ‘agent of change’. His style of delivery is not a monotone, but an engaging, riveting performance of tonal changes with just the right amount of hand gesticulations and shifting of body positions. None of these ‘shifts’ display any sort of nervousness. Obama obviously prepares well for his speeches because he never seems to falter. The flow of delivery is consistent. The speeches that Obama delivers are coherent and the ideas that he puts forth are logical. The earnestness, with which Obama speaks, conveys his conviction and honesty of purpose. These are important emotions to convey to an audience and potential voters. According to Rees-Mogg “His speaking style has been influenced by the great black preachers, such as Martin Luther King, but his speeches have an intellectual as well as rhetorical content”(2008, 1).
Conclusion
It is important for a public speaker to gauge the mood of the audience and mold his speech accordingly. Obama achieves this admirably. It has been noticed that at times, Obama strays away from the prepared script and speaks his mind. This ability to ‘go extempore’ is by far his most positive strength. It is on race issues that Obama delivered what can be considered as the finest speech since Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech. In that speech, Obama clearly explains his position on the race issue and honestly spoke about it without rancor, rhetoric, or resorting to extreme positions. Through that speech, Obama revealed his breadth of vision, his ability to inspire people, and his maturity of thought which led the New York Times to endorse him with this paean “He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems” (Editorial, 1). Throughout his speeches, Obama has shown the ability to mesmerize the audience, and his personal charisma, youthfulness, and energy bring back the memories of John F Kennedy which is sure to impinge on the election results. Thus it can be said that Obama’s superb style of public speaking has to a large extent helped consolidate his bid for the US Presidency.
“A More Perfect Union” was a speech by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008. In his most famous speech, Obama elicited debates among many people. It addressed the issue of race in the United States, aiming to rethink divisions within the country. Obama’s speech is criticized for having rhetorical statements and sensitive topics that no one would dare to talk about back then. This essay provides an argumentative rhetorical analysis of Barack Obama’s speech – “A More Perfect Union.”
In his speech, Obama is very conscious and aware of his audience. His primary target audience is the American population and especially the voters. After addressing the entire American population, he goes further and splits his audience into different groups.
The second group that he addresses is the White Americans. In his speech, he lets them know that there are racial wounds that continued to affect them and many generations. Obama cautiously addresses the challenge of racial discrimination, making sure he does not cause more pain or divide people further through race. However, he does not shy away to put his point across and make his stand known.
Thirdly, Obama addresses the black Americans. As a matter of fact, he is aware that people see him as a black American. Therefore, the people are keen to see how he handles the issue of race.
His message for them does not show any favoritism of race. He notes that, ‘a similar anger exists within the segments of the white community’ (Obama Par. 35). While addressing them, he explains at length that there existed a general feeling among the white when the blacks got better services. The feeling was that of paying for mistakes they did not commit.
Obama shows his wealth of knowledge on the issue that affects people of America. He selects his words carefully while addressing racism that has for many decades affected American people He crafts his speech to be convincing and instead of the issue of race eliciting pain, this time it soothes. The audience is rather calm and does not elicit any aggressive emotions. This is a clear demonstration that he knew his audience well and their needs.
Obama then makes his point clear, aiming to give a solution to the challenges faced by the people of America. He cautions the American people from thinking that forgetting about racism would solved the problem.
The message contained in his speech is that of peace and unity. He wants them to learn to live with one another and appreciate differences in race. Obama ensures that he has addressed the two groups equally so that he unites them together as one people and one audience. He further discusses at length the importance for Americans to speak in one voice and work together in unity.
Rhetorical Fallacies in A More Perfect Union Speech
In his speech, ‘A More perfect Union’ Obama’s opening statements reveals the purpose the speech intended to meet. Obama obtains his first statement from the United States Constitution, ‘We the people, in order to create a perfect union’ (Obama par. 1.). These words reframe and capture the rationale of the Constitution.
Obama employs three rhetoric strategies in his speech. His speech rest upon: emotional, ethical and logical fallacies. He identifies himself with his audience persuasion. The famous quotes he derives from the constitution, makes even those who do not know the constitution, feel the importance of messages communicated (Stoner & Perkins 93).
His audience is aware of racism and Obama speaks of what has generally been unspoken. He achieves his philosophies by speaking facts, about his biological, intellectual and cultural life. The senator speaks about his background and does not deny his race; however, he does not bring it up in the speech (Ifill 54). Burke notes that, Senator Obama accomplishes his speech through, body language, variation of tones and gestures (78).
In his speech, Obama criticizes Americans’ old stain of slavery. He praises the constitution though uncompleted and assures his audience that the solutions to their problems were in the constitution. According to the senator, the constitution has stains due to nation’s original sin of slavery (Obama par.3), ‘…and the underlying roots of inequality and division in America’ (3).
Obama feels that the constitution provided ‘the answer to the slavery question… ‘a Constitution that promised people liberty and justice a lie that he says has been perfected over time’(4). He continues to add that the promises made on the paper were unaccomplished. Towards the end of his speech, Obama tells a story about Ashley. ‘ I am here because of Ashley’ (59). He uses this compelling and appealing approach of a moving and memorable story to seek sympathy from the voters.
Obama also uses repetition as a rhetoric approach to persuade his supporters. In his speech Paragraph 45, he pleads with his audience not to accept to be divided along their areas of weakness. In his entire speech, there is a constant repetition of the word race. In paragraph 26, he identifies race as a problem in the American society.
He says ‘But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now (Obama para. 26). In paragraph 45, he believes that the nation could deal with race by assuring his listeners and saying ‘We can tackle race only as spectacle (45). Other preceding paragraphs also explain the evils caused by racism. This, he uses to express his disapproval of racism in America and encourages people to live and work together to solve challenges created by racism
Obama uses various strategies to connect with the targeted audience. His persuasive appeal proves he is a successful writer and a speaker. His unquestionable ability to move and convince his audience using compelling and sufficient evidence like the constitution, his pastor and his family leaves one fully convinced.
Obama expresses a sense of disappointment over what he calls the ‘unfinished’ document. Actually, he uses a tone of deep disappointments to disapprove slavery (Obama Para. 6.). In fact, an ironical tone is felt when he says slave trade continued for decades and the burden left for to the generation to come. Therefore, his ability to pass his intended information using the application of different stylistic devices is achieved.
Obama changes his tone and uses direct tone. He says..‘I believe deeply we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve the together’ (Obama para. 6.) There is directness in his speech, which continues with to the end, he makes unity a constant remainder in the rest of the speech.
In his speech, Obama sets to give assurance and hope to his supporters. He uses encouraging words like ‘we can do that’ (46), ‘We can tackle race only as spectacle….’ (45) and ‘we can come together and say, “Not this time.”’ (48). By the end of the speech, it is clear where he derives his campaign slogan ‘Yes we can’ and what it meant to all Americans.
Conclusion
This extensive argumentative analysis has revealed that Obama used different rhetorical elements to talk cautiously about a topic on race that many would not dare to discuss. As a matter of fact, Obama’s ability to give a complex and a convincing speech is evident. From the analysis, we can conclude that, Obama is a successful writer and speaker who knew his audience needs. He employed the use of different figures in speech and stylistic devices to pass sound messages to people without any incidents.
Works Cited
Burke, Kenneth. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Print.
Ifill, Gwen. (2009). The breakthrough: Politics and race in the age of Obama. New York: Doubleday. Print.
Individuals go through different developmental phases as they negotiate diverse experiences from childhood to adulthood, otherwise known as lifespan. The experiences are mainly determined by both nature and nurture influences, and plays a central role in determining an individual’s personality (Grogorenko & Sternberg, 2003).
It is imperative to note at this early stage that consecutive studies on developmental phases through the lifespan has yielded many theories that attempt to explain the mental, emotional, cognitive, and social development experienced by individuals. This paper purposes to critically analyze what forces have impacted the life of U.S. President Barrack Obama from the perspective of developmental psychology by applying two theories of personality in the analyses of the influences throughout the lifespan.
Heredity and Environmental Influences
Psychologists largely believe that both heredity and environmental factors play a fundamental role in the development of a multiplicity of personality traits (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Personality can be exclusively described as the continuing or long-term patterns of thought, values, world views, and behavior that an individual projects or expresses in diverse circumstances (Shaffer, 2009; Polak et al, 2010).
By any standards, Obama is charismatic, ambitious, and goal-directed (Jittan & Immelman, 2008). He is confident, analytical, thoughtful, sensitive, and energetic, not mentioning the fact that he is independent and open in both thought and action.
The above personality traits, though not conclusive, can be used to describe the person of the 44th president of the U.S. President Obama’s cognitive and intellectual aptitudes largely demonstrated through his sharp thinking and leadership approach can be attributed to heredity influences, especially with the realization that his father was an astute civil servant in post-independence Kenya.
Heredity influences occur when genetic characteristics are transmitted from the parents to the offspring. His skin color and hair type are genetic factors that must have influenced his social and emotional development especially in socialization processes. Obama’s resilient and goal-directed nature can be attributed to the experiences he underwent as a child and youth due to the heredity influences described above.
Environmental influences are thought to have the biggest role in determining personality traits of individuals (Shaffer, 2009). According to the author, personality characteristics are not only determined in part by environmental influences, but they influence how individuals adjust to the immediate environment and how they respond to particular situations.
Obama cuts across a figure of a person who is emotionally stable, morally straight, and cognitively superior as demonstrated by his accomplished oratory skills, leadership qualities, confident, sensitive, thoughtful, and attentive nature.
These characteristics can be attributed to environmental influences that the president experienced while growing up in a single-family setup and in school. According to Myers (2009), Obama’s “…black African father, white American mother, Muslim middle name, and childhood spent partially in Asia make him more that the 21st-century embodiment of the classic American melting pot” (para. 5). The cultural environment in which young Obama grew explains his assertive and competitive nature (Shaffer, 2009).
Family Issues and Support Systems
It is safe to argue that family issues must have played a significant role in the developmental growth and adjustment of President Obama. First, Obama was born out of a multi-racial relationship between an African father and a white American mother (Myers, 2009).
This must have had a profound effect on Obama’s personality development. According to Shaffer (2009), the personality development of individuals is affected by whether such individuals have other siblings, and also by the order in which the siblings are born in the family context.
Reliable sources say that Obama had a junior sister, hence he was the first born in the family. His parents separated when Obama was young. According to Shaffer (2009), first-born children live to become more achievement-oriented, independent, and responsible. This can be used to explain Obama’s mastery of the above named attributes.
Shaffer (2009) asserts that “…the home environment parents provide for their children is influenced in part by the parents own genotypes…And because parents also provide their children with genes, it so happens that the learning environments to which children are exposed are correlated with…their own genotypes (p. 82).
This statement reveals how heredity and environment come into play in the family context to influence an individual’s personality development. In support systems, Obama was said to be a high performer both in high school and college (Myers, 2009). Here, it can be said that his physical characteristics (good looks) and emotional stability (outgoing nature) influenced his developmental growth and adjustment during his formative years.
Physical attraction comes as a result of heredity influences while emotional stability can be occasioned by both heredity and environmental influences. According to Shaffer (2009), physically attractive students are more likely to be treated favorably and auspiciously than their less attractive counterparts, hence heightening their confidence and energy levels as revealed in the case of Obama.
Theories of Personality Development
There exist many theories of personality development that attempts to explain how individuals maneuver their way through the different developmental phases. Sigmund Freud’s psychosocial theory and Watson’s social learning theory of can be applied to explain Obama’s personality development.
In psychosexual theory, Freud argued that individuals are largely driven by drives and conflicts that they are oblivious of, not mentioning the fact that their personalities is overwhelmingly shaped by early childhood experiences (Shaffer, 2009). It is up to the individual to control the powerful biological urges that seeks to be fulfilled since society view them as undesirable.
According to Shaffer, “…the way in which parents have managed these sexual and aggressive urges in the first few years of life play a major role in shaping the child’s future conduct and character” (p. 39). Freud comes up with the stages of psychological development and suggests that a child must successfully pass through the stages and avoid fixation to lead a fulfilling life in adulthood (Polak et al, 2010).
On the other hand, Watson postulates that conclusions about individual personality development should be based on observations and interpretations of unconcealed behavior patterns rather than conjecturing about unconscious processes or urges that are not observable.
Indeed, Watson believed that “…well learned associations between external stimuli and observable responses…are the building blocks of human development” (Shaffer, 2009, p. 44). According to Watson, social environment rather than inborn tendencies are instrumental in individual’s personality development.
Consequently, Sigmund’s psychosocial theory differ in major ways with Watson’s social learning approach as far as explaining Obama’s personality development is concerned. The psychosocial theory seems to suggest that childhood experiences largely determine the personality of an individual in adulthood.
In addition, Freud’s childhood experiences are largely as a result of biological urges that cannot be quantitatively measured (Shaffer, 2009). As such, the theory presupposes that Obama must have had a totally fulfilling childhood for him to develop such astute personality characteristics in adulthood. According to Sigmund’s theory, the experiences that Obama had in school and in his role as a senator cannot be said to influence his personality traits since they were informed by his childhood experiences.
Watson, however, punches holes on this viewpoint, suggesting that personality traits are largely dependent on the rearing environments. In addition, Watson asserts that the personality traits of children are also dependent on the parents and other significant individuals in the lives of children (Shaffer, 2009; Polak et al, 2010).
To conclude, therefore, Watson’s social learning theory best explains the personality traits and accomplishments of president Obama. It can be argued that Obama has gained a lot of experiences from interacting with the social environment.
It is wrong to suggest that the president has gained the incredible personality traits through a sequence of divergent stages informed by a process of biological maturation (Shafter, 2009). On the contrary, Obama’s personality traits have been achieved through a continuous process of behavior transformation that is informed by his interactions with the social environment.
Reference List
Grogorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (2003). The nature-nurture issue. In: A. Slater & G. Bremmer (Eds), An introduction to developmental psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children’s pro-social behavior: Genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 90, Issue 1, p. 147-164. Retrieved from Academic Source Premier Database.
Polak, M., Van, H.L., Overeem-Seldenrijk, J., Heiser, W.J., & Abraham, R.E. (2010). The developmental profile validation of a theory-driven instrument for personality assessment. Psychotherapy Research, Vo. 20, Issue, 3, P. 259-272. Retrieved from Academic Source Premier Database.
Shaffer, D.R. (2009). Social and personality development, 6th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
President Obama addressed to Congress on September 8, 2011 with a speech. At the very beginning of the speech, he said that American people didn’t want to hear about future elections and other political issues, as they were more concerned about their families and jobs.
Obama focused his attention on the American Jobs Act aimed at creating job places and offering businesspersons better conditions for running business. Obama wanted the American Jobs Act to be passed by the Congress as he believed that this act was the only necessary for the country.
The main purpose of the act under consideration is to create more job places to make people return to work. Obama dwells upon skies and transportation system which are at the lowest position in quality right now. Obama states that if the act is passed, the construction works are going to be implemented. Financing the building of world-class transportation system people are going to be employed and this will help the country economy.
Furthermore, Obama pays attention to schools and educational system in general. He is sure that the USA has many schools which are ruined but due to their reconstructions, they may open its doors for students and offer many positions for teachers and other staff. Obama is sure that having created new jobs, the country’s social and economical situation may improve.
Much attention in the article is paid to small business. Obama is sure that small business is a guarantee of new positions creation. Small business flourishing in the country may improve the situation at the labor market. Promising tax cuts to those who hire more new employees and raise workers’ wages, Obama wants encourage small entrepreneurship to combat unemployment. Veterans’ employment is also going to be rewarded with tax credits.
However, having read the speech up to the end, the only question which arises in my mind is where Obama is going to take money for the actions he is to apply. Buildings and transportation system construction require great deal of financial injections. The USA is on the threshold of bankruptcy and it does not have an opportunity to finance new positions and reconstruction of the country. Furthermore, Obama plans to cut taxes of the country which need those taxes to recover from crises.
Obama promises fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year for each typical working family. Where Obama wants to take such money? Taxes are one of the main sources of income of the USA and depriving the country of this financial support means to leave it without any financial profit.
The President should think about the ways to improve the standard of life in the country by means of other actions but not at the expense of economical situation in the country. Thus, country’s economy is in the unfavorable position and the failure to implement the actions which may help it may cause great problems in the future.
In conclusion, Obama’s American Jobs Act is a great opportunity to help reduce unemployment in the country. But this act cannot be applied at the moment due to the existing situation in the country. Being on the threshold of bankruptcy and having a huge debt the USA is unable to go too far and cut the taxes which are indispensable for the country’s further functioning and are the main means for recovering from crisis.