Stump Speech - Rhetoric

Just as we used the stump speech of the presumed Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, to illustrate the concepts of logos and pathos, we can now use a speech of his likely rival, President Obama (in this case, his 2012 campaign kickoff speech – which you should read through before continuing) to look at another critical thinking concept: the use of persuasive language (referred to earlier as “rhetoric”).

Most commentators would agree that President Obama is a highly skilled orator, which means his use of a number of rhetorical devices comes off more naturally than they would if used by a less talented speaker.  While such ability comes with some perils (notably, a tendency to talk too long or pack too many rhetorical schemes and tropes into a single speech), audiences tend to become more uplifted and transported when listening to a speaker who brings a skilled use of rhetoric to his or her presentations.

Let’s start by looking at some of the linguistic devices that tend to make the President’s speech “easy on the ear.”  First, you can find many instances of alliteration (the repeating of initial consonant sounds).  Thus we are reclaiming a “basic bargain that built” (B-B-B) and dealing with “a house of cards that collapsed in the most destructive crisis” (C-C-C), which is why we are at a “make-or-break moment for the middle class” (M-M-M).

Similarly, the President makes extensive use of anaphora, the repetition of the same word at the start of multiple linked sentences or phrases, which is why your children should get the chance to do better “no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what your last name is.”  On the written page, all those extra “or’s” would be superfluous.  But when spoken, they add life to an otherwise flat sentence, which is why we need to “make sure we aren’t taken advantage of by credit card companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions” (as opposed to credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions – a less threatening group without that extra “and” replacing the comma).

Triplets abound within his speech, signifying how much we like examples, concepts and phrases to be grouped into threes (such as those aforementioned credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions).  Or take a look at this paragraph, in which the anaphoric phrase “Why else” is repeated at the beginning of three sentences to pull us through a particularly damning set of accusations:

"Why else would he [Governor Romney] want to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Why else would he propose cutting his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families? Why else would he want to slash the investments that have always helped the economy grow, but at the same time, stop regulating the reckless behavior on Wall Street that helped the economy crash?”

Before moving on, keep in mind that the use of these types of rhetoric flourishes by a skilled speaker is not necessarily manipulative, or even a conscience choice by a speechwriter or speaker.  Every speaker wants to both convince and move an audience and devices like alliteration and anaphora are often what turn a dry speech into engaging oratory.  And a skilled writer or speaker has likely internalized these techniques to the point of using them without even knowing they represent named devices (much like my frequent use of this parentheses device became second nature before I even realized it had a name).

Elsewhere in the speech, President Obama’s points become more sophisticated and nuanced, allowing him to avoid one of the biggest problems in a stump speech: how to attack one’s political enemies without sounding shrill or small-minded (a particularly problem for an incumbent President who must not be seen as damaging the dignity of his office).

Which is why he spends half a paragraph heaping praise on his likely adversary as a “patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family…” who has a lot to be proud of, including having “run a large financial firm” as well as a state (my own state of Massachusetts, as it happens).  But (the President asserts), Governor Romney has learned the wrong lessons from these experiences (assigning to him the belief that wealth flows from the top down).

Now, one can argue that he misrepresents his opponent’s actual positions, but as a rhetorical structure, Obama’s praise for his opponent followed by harsh criticism presented more in sorrow than anger is an masterful way of condemning his opponent’s beliefs (while also defining those beliefs in a way that fits the President’s own campaign themes) without coming off as insincere or sarcastic (as in “my opponent deserves the billions he earned by ripping off the public for years”).

The speech actually climaxes eight paragraphs from the end with a series of rhetorical questions: "Will we [be] better off if more Americans get a better education?”, “Will we better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity?”, etc. (each of which is punctuated by the repeated phrase: “That is the question.” – an unnecessary add-on in an otherwise economical speech).  Given that he is likely to be speaking to a friendly audience, the anticipated answer to each question is likely a resounding “Yes” shouted from the crowed, creating a dramatic bonding moment between speaker and audience, leaving the remainder of the speech as a relaxing cigarette and promises of more to follow.

Regardless of your political persuasion, watching an artist perform his or her craft well is something we should all be ready to appreciate.  Especially since mastery of these devices can help us learn to effectively persuade others to do what we know is best for them (or at least help us identify when someone is trying to persuade us to do what they feel is best for us).