In the lesson plans I’ve included for podcasts covering subjects like the Modes of Persuasion and argumentation, I’ve included exercises asking students to color code different parts of a political speech for use of logos, pathos or ethos (indicating the mode of persuasion the speaker is using) or past-, present- and future-tense verbs (indicating the type of argument being made – forensic, demonstrative or deliberative).
As tempting as it would be to do this with both candidate’s complete acceptance speeches, time will only allow some overarching observations regarding each candidate’s use of these critical thinking components we’ve been discussing for the last several weeks.
As you heard during last week’s podcast, it was relatively easy to break down how Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was organized. With the exception of a Division (in which he introduces his argument) broken in two and mixed with his Statement of Facts, it was fairly easy to see how his speech was constructed using the classical components of Arrangement.
One of the reasons why his speech fits so well into this structure is that Romney relied heavily on logos throughout his address, no surprise given his nature as a “just the facts” sort of businessman. And since the bulk of a traditional speech is built around logos-based elements (with ethos reserved primarily for the Introduction and pathos for the Conclusion), Romney seemed in his elements presenting his facts (his biography, his assessment of where the company was economically) and his logical proof as to why someone with his biography is best suited to solve the problems he describes.
If you tried to draw lines between where these same Arrangement elements fell in Obama’s speech, you would have a much harder time doing so. And I think the reason for that is that Obama (in this speech anyway) relies far more on pathos and ethos than he does logos.
This may be because he has to balance some of the difficulties the country continues to face with the high expectations he set for his presidency four years ago. Which means he is required to acknowledge problems still exist, but is not required to go into long explanations of each and every one of them in the same way his opponent does.
While this makes sense politically, it did leave him with a speech more focused on emotional and communal appeals than facts and logic. This certainly played to Obama’s strengths (since he is a master of emotional persuasion, especially in the Perorations that end his campaign addresses). But it created an acceptance address that seems more of a scattershot collection of general (vs. specific) statements punctuated by uplifting verbal images.
And speaking of uplifting images, I did find it interesting that the president chose to use a technique we discussed during our Modes of Persuasion podcast (talking about individuals who benefited from his policies) without naming names (much less having the people themselves appear in the audience – a standing ritual at recent political conventions). Perhaps this technique has just grown tiresome in recent years, although I suspect that the candidate knows himself well enough to understand that not everyone can pull it off successfully.
So, at least with regard to rhetorical round one, Mitt Romney gets the nod for structure and logos while Obama wins the contest for best use of pathos and ethos.
Next time, we’ll see who did better with regard to keeping the discussion future oriented through the use of deliberative argumentation.
