Proposal for Presidential Rhetoric

Several semesters ago, in a literature class far, far away, I remember reading a short essay by Roland Barthes called Photography and Electoral Appeal. Focusing on the effects that subtle photographic elements have on the appearance of political candidates, and how these appearances relay subconscious messages to the voter viewing the photo, Barthes argues that these elements are meant to translate into a specific ideology about the candidate's stance, as well as creating an image that appeals to a national consensus of "normal."

We talked briefly about photographic rhetoric in class the other day and it immediately reminded me of Barthes article. So I decided that for this assignment I would like to focus on exactly that subject, and do a rhetorical analysis of photos from the campaign, using Barthes' work, and concepts from Aristotle in my rhetorical tool belt. And by the nature of the analysis I would assume that most of it would focus on the ethos of the speaker (or in this case, the visual candidate). 

Am I Doing It Right?

I like analyzing these commercials between Tester and Rehberg because there's nothing I hate more than seeing them everywhere I go. Revealing the dog and pony show technique has a certain satisfaction to it. I did Tester last time, so to be fair, here's the link to Rehberg's video.

Enthymeme: "Since Obama came into office, Montanan's have lost thousands of jobs." The premise this statement is relying on here is that people need jobs to feed and support their families. However, the unstated premise that the viewer hears is that Obama is not doing his job correctly since the economy is not improving. Perhaps because he doesn't care, or perhaps because he is incompetent. It isn't readily stated so the viewer gets to make any connection or assumption they want based on the claim.

Rehberg gives the viewer an object to displace their anger and frustration at, and creates a target out of Obama. And during this moment of vulnerability and apparent safety he jumps at the opportunity to reveal his plan to boost the economy, create more jobs, and be the problem solver in the situation.

 

"People like Others Who Smile a lot While Standing Next to Barns"

If Aristotle lived in Montana, this statement would have surely been presented under his topics of kindness and friendly feeling, so as not to leave any stone unturned, and since he fancies himself to be the "Appropriator of all Possibilities, Ever." I like to imagine him adding, "If the speaker owns a piece of farm equipment, broken or otherwise, it would be an added touch, and advantageous for his purposes, if he could make it apparent that he owns one; for all Montanans relate to, and find virtue in farm equipment -- and broken stuff that needs fixin'."

Exhibit A:

Aristotle's presumptuousness and imagined comprehensiveness aside, Tester is fully using to his advantage the praise-creating force of epideitic rhetoric, though he disguises it by using an implied premise of healthful apathy to instill into the thoughts of voters, an enthymeme:

 "Montanans don't care which party gets the credit or the blame, that's why I'm focused on doing what's right for Montana."

In saying this, he immediately absolves himself from any charge of misusing rhetoric and epideitic speech to sway the public opinion. He isn't playing the praise and blame bi-partisan game; he's in it to do what's right, and to pursue the needs of the people.

 For the purpose of getting more votes he tries to portray himself as the "once-was-blind-but-now-I-see" politician, who moved from the corrupt world of Washington politics to gain a new "perspective" and appreciation for his fellow Montanans. He becomes a more trustworthy figure for his audience, and removes himself from the political pedestal. He cares about rifles, smiles at barns, and likes hokey country-western music as much as the next guy. Though in my opinion, his folksy intro at relating to the public is a terrible failure as he states what is readily obvious to almost anyone with a brain:

"The combine doesn't care if you're a senator. It breaks down when it wants to break down."

How's that for enlightened perspective?

In terms of pathos, Tester tries to create friendly feelings among his voters. He says he shares the concerns of every Montanan and wants to create companionship, and not for any personal agenda. He also inspires a feeling of kindliness by being the voice of the people and setting up an Us and Them mentality. Through stating his disillusion with the social bureaucrats, showing warm, familiar, rural landscape, attacking the wealthy on Wall Street, and returning to a back to basics type of platform, Tester tries to mask the line between ruler and ruled.

Obama's Subtle Literary Technique

I'll be the first to admit my firm subversion to politics and politicians -- American and otherwise. Luckily for me this is a rhetorics class where we will be analyzing discourse and oration...not the cult of personality and celebrity spectator sport of politics. To the relief of my classmates I will try and elaborate on technique and methods employed, not my opinion on the matter (which I'm sure all of you are just dying to hear).  

All extremes aside -- whether you have enshrined Obama as the second Jesus, or avidly denounced his platform as nothing more than polished-up socialism -- I think it's pretty agreeable among everyone to say that he is an excellent public speaker. He consistently proves his charisma and talent for oration, the most recent of which was displayed at the Democratic National Convention. 

Beyond the typical campaigning and crowd-stoking, I discovered an inkling of joy when I noticed Obama ever-so-subtly uncovering and celebrating a rich history of beautiful American poetry behind his speech. As an English major not caring much for politics this defined my emotional peak (pathos) of the speech. To this effect, Obama was all the more successful in his use of rhetoric in that while he may not have changed my mind, he at least softened its hard edge by appealing to my aesthetic interests -- for the purpose of his speech, it's a good start. To know that one's current President might at least have some basic knowledge, if not appreciation, of literature may be enough to slightly, or dramatically, sway the opinion of voters. Furthermore, as all literature has its own rhetorical methods used to evoke emotion from its readers, it's not a bad idea for a speaker to employ that particular audience's own popular culture, as well as using its same literary methods, to further the ethos and pathos of the  speech.

Some poetic snippets from Obama's address:    

"We can gut education, or we can decide that in the United States of America, no child should have her dreams deferred because of a crowded classroom or a crumbling school."

Reaching out to a minority population who respect his diversity and upbringing, as well as celebrating his own ethnic roots, Obama made prime use of the popular phrase "dream deferred," first coined by the Harlem poet Langston Hughes in his well-known poem.   

"I'm hopeful because of you. 

The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter — she gives me hope.
The auto worker who won the lottery after his plant almost closed, but kept coming to work every day, and bought flags for his whole town and one of the cars that he built to surprise his wife — he gives me hope.
The family business in Warroad, Minnesota, that didn't lay off a single one of their 4,000 employees when the recession hit...they give me hope.
I think about the young sailor I met at Walter Reed Hospital still recovering from a grenade attack that would cause him to have his leg amputated above the knee...He gives me hope."

It could be a stretch, but in this quote Obama's rhetorical device of using quick, photographic snapshots of the Everyday American Life is quite relatable to the public, as well as reminiscent of the rhetorical style of Walt Whitman, one of my absolute favorite poets. This is especially effective because Whitman is widely regarded as one of thee defining American poets -- a lover of democracy, equality, and of people from all ethnicities, religions, education, and wealth (though his love, and poetry, extend far beyond the political realm). And Obama really uses this to his advantage when put in the context of unemployment and economic crisis: the image of the average, struggling American worker...gives him hope; it's something that uncertain families are searching for. Notice Whitman's similar technique from his transcendent book, Leaves of Grass:

"The one-year wife is recovering and happy, a week ago she bore her first child,
The cleanhaired Yankee girl works with her sewing-machine or in the factory mill,
The nine months' gone is in the parturition chamber, her faintness and pains are advancing;
The pavingman leans on his twohanded rammer -- the reporter's lead flies swiftly over the notebook -- the signpainter is lettering with red and gold" (Whitman, Song of Myself)

On Encomium of Helen

Alright, so I might need to brush up on my Homer, and maybe I'm looking into this with too much of a modern perspective instead of looking at the context of the times, but...

I felt that Gorgias summed up his argument for Helen's innocence in his Proposition where he states, "For either by fate's will and god's wishes and necessity's decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced" (Kennedy, 253).

However, I feel that both of these options are a bit reductive and sexist towards women, as both arguments assume that Helen has to be a victim of forces greater than herself to leave for Troy. He paints Helen as this defenseless female who has no ability to think for herself, or control her own emotions; her destiny is utterly at the whim of everything except her. How do we know Helen didn't decide on her own terms to go to Troy with Paris? Maybe she was pissed off at her dad about something.

Also, I feel like playing it off as an act of divine will is kind of a cop-out. Whether or not it's true, you can't prove something like that. I mean, that sort of discourse would never fly in today's courtroom where freedom of choice is the accepted philosophical stance: "It's alright that this man murdered his entire family. God made him do it." But then again, times could have been different back then.

Like I said, maybe I shouldn't be looking at this with a modern perspective. Maybe Homer made it clear in The Iliad that Helen was, in fact, forced to go.

But either way, isn't Gorgias being a little one-sided in his assumption that Helen didn't want to go to Troy, or that it was persuasion that made her do it? Was it really an issue of strong forces overcoming weaker forces, or is Helen an able-minded woman capable of thinking for herself?

I am very confused...

Pre-writing, and Other Bad Advice

To be brutally honest, all the pre-writing advice I've ever been given in school has proven hopelessly confining, rigid, and a fantastic way to dry up every last bit of personality and creative potential in the most systematic and "practical" of ways. Even the idea of dividing the writing process into separate stages seems absurd to me. "Okay class, I think fifteen minutes of brainstorming is all we have time for today. Why don't we move on to the next step where you squeeze all your thoughts and imagination into this bulleted outline. And remember, good essays fit into five paragraphs!" Who are the geniuses coming up with these rules and techniques for writers?

End rant.

This is not to say that the organization of thoughts is not a vital step, but almost every single teacher that's insisted on brain mapping, thought bubbles, or any other technique has also had a devout, and religious relationship with the five paragraph essay, formulaic outlines, or any of their flat, box-nosed cousins. And my writing never improves, I only hold it to a pre-determined standard of greatness -- it's never worked for me.

My "pre-writing," if I should really call it that, is more like a shotgun burst barreling into my head that splatters my thought process onto a piece of paper, napkin, notepad -- whatever happens to be around at the time. Disregarding structure, I just quickly jot down every single important thought, tidbit, concept, whatever, that comes to mind, or that I think I may want to include in my writing. The process may start after a certain intense, or revelatory thing that's happened to me. But more often than not, I'll just  be thinking, thinking, doing more thinking, thinking about nothing at all -- then it hits me and I need to record it before it escapes. My muse has always been a violent, hammer-wielding bitch who only arrives via freight train at the exact hour I'm in the middle of something, and I deal with her accordingly. That's the pre-writing that works best for me.

And just in general, the only writing advice I've ever returned to time and time again, regardless of what "stage" of the writing process I am in, has been boiled down into one nicely refined word: "Write." That's all there is to it, just write...something.