Ah! I'm sorry I thought I posted this on Friday! But I guess I didn't... Ha...
Meghan O’Neal
Understanding the
Audience
A good rhetorician always keeps his
or her audience in mind. Words mean nothing presented to the wrong group of
people. Romney and Obama both have a strong understanding of their audience.
They use their audience in very different ways, however. While Romney caters to
a very specific audience (conservatives, especially Christian conservatives),
Obama tends to use his audience as a rhetorical tool, raising excitement and
including them in his speeches.
On
August 14th , Romney spoke to a group of Ohioans on his campaign
trail. In this speech, he was speaking almost exclusively to Republicans and
those who oppose Obama. He built ethos for this audience by being introduced by
the governor of Ohio – a Republican – and the Senator representing Ohio – also
a Republican. This was a wise move on Romney’s part because these were two
politicians who already had the trust of Ohio. When he steps up to go into his
speech, he already has some of the trust of the voters of Ohio, instead of
having to build ethos for himself.
The
contents of Romney’s speech also cater to the Republican voter. Multiple times
he mentions God. He mentions America as “One Nation under God” and in his
conclusion he states, “God bless you. And God bless the United States of
America” (Romney). This is a strong statement, not only showing his faith, but
also showing that God is part of the United States and will stay a part of the
United States if Romney is elected. Keeping God in the American government is a
very Christian Republican idea. Although many Christians hold this idea in the
highest regard, and for many Christians this can be the most important issue,
it serves to alienate a lot of American voters who do not share this faith and
who do not agree with it. Mentioning God in his speech was a very conscious
decision made for his very specific audience.
Romney
also built up a sense of traditional patriotism in his speech, which is also
more of a Conservative ideal. He says, “American history has been a story of
the many becoming one – uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the
greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable
darkness” (Romney). These ideas of America as the greatest country in the world
and preserving liberty and saving the world is very conservative. Looking at
recent trends, such as the Tea Party movement and the push back towards
Reaganomics, Republicans have been looking to return to a more traditional
America. A more patriotic America. He is bringing a strong sense of pathos to
his conservative voters. His repeated use of the word “uniting” as well as the
idea that America has the power to save the world and is the greatest country
in the world is a very traditional patriotic idea. It builds emotion and pride
within the audience. It has the strong enthymeme that this is the America we
should be, and this is the America that Romney can create.
Obama
opens his speech to the people of Virginia on September 27th
similarly to Romney in that he tries to build ethos for himself. However,
instead of being introduced, he drops a few names, thanking those who have
helped him during the course of the campaign. This serves to not only build a
trust with his audience as he points out the names of those who support his
campaign effort, but it also humbles Obama, building more pathos. The audience
trusts him more because he humbles himself. He seems to say, “I am not doing
this alone. These are the people who have helped me and I am grateful” (Obama).
This contrasts with Romney’s introducers because Romney had others come in to
build himself up, while Obama built himself up by building up others.
Throughout
his speech, Obama continues this idea that he cannot do this alone. He
consistently includes the audience and his voters by using “we” instead of “I.”
He attributes his successes to his voters, which makes them more involved in
the campaign process. This serves to continue Obama’s humility as well as
unifies the audience. He is saying that together we can make a difference,
which makes the audience feel more involved and active in the entire process.
He further brings the audience in by asking questions and waiting for the
audience to respond, which they do, loudly and in unison. This creates more of
a conversation between Obama and his audience, bringing them together and
adding to his idea that we are all in this together, and he needs his voters in
order to be successful. Obama also repeats phrases in a predictable manner
which makes it easy for his audience to follow along, and even join in when
they hear these phrases. After mentioning shortcomings of Romney, the audience
would boo, and to that, Obama would reply, “Don’t boo. Vote” (Obama). Not only
does this go along with Obama’s theme that he can’t do this alone, and that he
needs his voters, it also gives his audience the feeling that they are
important and their voices do make a difference. The audience also began to
join in once they heard the familiar words, “Don’t boo. Vote,” and towards the
end of the speech, Obama would leave this open-ended, saying “Don’t boo,” and
the audience would finish, “Vote!” The back and forth conversation, the
vocality of the audience, and Obama’s ability to keep the emotion and passion
of the audience going created a very pathetic speech. The audience was very
emotion-driven, and by the end of the speech, they were incredibly passionate
and excited about Obama and everything he had to say.
Obama had a very strong understanding
of his audience and, therefore, was able to use his audience in order to make
his point of unification and togetherness. He brought the audience together,
much like he said he wants to bring America together. He made sure the audience
knew that he could not do this without him, and created an audience of, not
just voters, but fans of Obama who cared about him as a person, not just a
president. He became more relatable because of his open conversation with his
audience. Towards the end, it didn’t matter what he said because he had the
audience’s complete loyalty.
Romney and Obama had very different approaches
to their audiences. Romney knew his specific audience and carefully crafted a
speech for that audience, while Obama used his audience as a rhetorical tool in
order to create a conversation, unify the audience, and build emotion. So, who
was more effective?
Both candidates knew their audiences.
They both made use of strong demonstrative arguments, tearing each other down
and trying to show how they would be better than the other. Each had key words
which they knew their audience would want to hear; Romney used any opportunity
to mention coal, God, America, jobs, family, and the middle class, while Obama
focused on being fair, what “we” could do for America, and jobs and the middle
class. These key words served the purpose of reminding the audience of each
candidate’s priorities, but it also shows that each candidate had a strong
understanding of what the audience wanted to hear, and so they gave it to them.
This is a purely emotional tactic, intended to bring a sense of loyalty to the
candidate. I think, however, that Obama does a better job of catering to a
wider audience, while Romney tends to alienate groups of people because of his
mention of God. Obama also unifies his audience, bringing them in and creating
an interactive atmosphere. This builds the audience’s emotions as their passion
feeds off of his and each other’s. Once the audience is emotional, it doesn’t
matter what Obama says because they get caught up in the excitement.
Both candidates knew their audience
and used that knowledge. However, Obama seemed to have more of a grasp on an
audience beyond his supporters in Virginia. He worked for unification within
his audience, which provided the enthymeme that, if re-elected, he would work
for the unification of America. The point to his speech was that Americans need
to work together in order to create a better, more fair America for everyone.
His audience served as an example of that as he and the audience worked
together to build emotion and support for what he was saying. Romney, on the other
hand, made the choice to speak to his very specific audience. Although this was
an effective choice for the audience he chooses, it is not necessarily the best
rhetorical choice in terms of the moderate vote. Overall, Obama made more
effective use of a wider audience while Romney was only effective within his
specific audience.
Citations
Obama,
Barack. "Virginia Beach, VA September 27, 2012." 09-27-2012. Address.
Romney,
Mitt. "Chillicothe, OH August 14, 2012." 08-14-12. Address.
