President Barak Obama’s
second inauguration speech was watched by over one million people. As a
rhetorical critic, one using the Aristotelian method of critical analysis needs
to look at several factors. Was the speech forensic, epideictic, or
deliberative? How was his delivery? How did he use ethos, pathos, and logos?
There is a lot to analyze about the speech critically. My main questions while
listening were what he would bring up in terms of national issues, what he
would mention from his first term, and if he would insult the republican party
or throw any insults in to his speech.
I found Obama’s speech to be epideictic and deliberative.
It was epideictic (dealing with the present, uses forms of praise or blame,
seeks to honor or cast dishonor) because
he was addressing his present state as a president who had completed one
term and is planning his second term. I think his rhetoric showed an urge to
honor not only what he did in his first term but America itself. He praised what
a strong nation America is and conveyed his sense of honor in leading the
country. The speech was deliberative (addresses the future, seeks to establish
expediency, urgency, or harmfulness by proposing a course of action) because
Obama addressed the future by mentioning things he would like to improve upon
or situations he would like to fix in his second term and alluding to the
possible course of action that may start very soon toward achieving his newer
goals.
Obama’s delivery was more plain style for more common
people. There were only two sets of references that the common public might not
understand. He made a reference to “Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall”,
referring to various sites of human rights protests. Only someone knowledgeable
in the area and American history would understand the references. His speech
did send a message of good will, however, it was not as inspirational as it
could have been.
Obama’s logos (logic) was strong. His basic argument
outlining his speech and supporting his policy arguments was the fact that
America’s constitution is great, and we live in a great land. The fact is,
however, that modern America needs to adjust to the current times. This was
evident as a theme when he spoke about some of the things he plans to do in his
second term. This current attitude mixed with hi policy ideas ended up being
some of his argument. Things that he brought up like equal pay and gay rights
should be rights as human beings, and our government needs to catch up with
that. He said at one point, “While these truths may be self-evident, they’ve
never been self-executing…For the American people can no more meet the demands
of today’s world by acting along than American soldiers could have met the
forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias”. He acknowledged that
the country has differences, but threw a jab at the republican party’s idea of
debate as making fun of people, which answered one of my questions.
Most of Obama’s issues such as poverty, the deficit,
global warming, gay rights, women’s equality, illegal alien voting rights,
immigration, clean energy, education, and having a greater sense of unity as a
nation all fell back to the modern America theme. His argument relied more on
what we should expect as humans rather than citizens, and as people who hope to
see the next generation have a great country to live in rather than people who
want everything fixed for themselves no matter what the consequences to future generations
would end up being. This answered another one of my questions about his speech,
what he would bring up for the next term.
Obama’s rhetoric was inspired to confirm the faith for
those who voted in him and show those who did not that he is capable of
handling the position. His style was geared toward mass appeal, which he used.
As a critic however, I can see that the theme of unity was so tightly woven
throughout the speech that whenever Obama said “we” it really meant “I”. Obama
appeared relaxed, comfortable, and authoritative on camera. He only swallowed a
few words, and he has always had a problem with the word “to”, but otherwise he
has very good speech habits.
Obama used ethos in a verbal and non-verbal way. He
exuded confidence non-verbally and established ethos through confidence, his
knowledge of history, accomplishments, and his intelligent and dynamic speaking
habits. Part of this credibility was mentioned in something else I wondered if
he would bring up, his first term. He, very early in the speech, mentioned the
end of the war, possible economic recovery, and respect for the soldiers.
The way he embraced pathos was a bit heavy for my taste.
I found his mention of the “little girl” example relatable, but his mention of
multiple incidents of children being killed was a bit heavy. It could have been
summed up with that fact that there is a violence issue in the US. Obama put
his emotions into seizing the moment and making the nation’s problems his
problems.
Obama’s speech utilized all of Aristotle’s
tenants of logos, pathos, and ethos. From examining his rhetoric, it can be
seen that as an orator, Obama is very good at speaking and getting his point
across. His use of logos, pathos, and ethos was convincing, but not as
convincing as it could have been. Overall, the speech was appropriate for a
second term in office, but it could have been more dynamic in content, he could
have made stronger points.
No comments:
Post a Comment