Eloquence

Study of Political Speeches

To relate the idea that this unit is about showing students how rhetoric is at work in the world all around them, and empowering them to find their voice in relation to an issue they care about, we will begin by watching the YouTube video of Asean Johnson's speech at a Chicago Teachers Union rally. This will help them see the impact a student voice can have. We'll then use the Smartboard to brainstorm a variety of issues that interest them.

The first three weeks will be filled with group reading (using a variety of close reading strategies, as described above), discussion and written analysis of a variety of political speeches. We will begin with two that are very accessible: Queen Elizabeth I's "Tilbury Speech" and John F. Kennedy's 1962 Presidential Address, "Preservation of Price Stability". I chose these because they each have a very clear purpose students' are quick to pick up on. They both rely heavily on an appeal to ethos to inspire confidence, use of strong diction to motivate and invoke pathos, and parallel structure to unify and emphasize ideas. The Queen's purpose is motivating her troops to fight bravely against the invading Spanish Armada in 1588. She addresses them as "My loving people", and refers to them as "faithful" and "loyal", using pathos to motivate. She says "I myself will take up arms" and "I myself will be your general, judge and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field". In his commentary on the speech, William Safire writes that the Queen, "commanded the affection of her subjects by virtue of her courage and her identification with the nation's fate" ⁵ an idea emphasized by her use of parallel structure. Likewise, JFK is seeking to move the American people to outrage against "a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility". He refers to their actions as "unjustifiable and irresponsible", and says they show, "contempt for 185 million Americans", the very people he is seeking to galvanize with his words. He bolsters his credibility by beginning his speech with a reminder of the sacrifices each American was making during that time, including himself, as "we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability", in order to emphasize that he, like Queen Elizabeth, was there with his people ⁶. He goes on to use parallel structure to emphasize the negative economic effect of the steel price hike. With this pairing, I want students to see how the same devices can be used in similar ways in two political speeches from very different periods.

Next, we will look at Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, focusing on use of antithesis, and, once again, diction and parallel structure. First, I'll show the "Gettysburg Address Mash Up" videos on YouTube, to bring this historical document into the modern day. Then we'll do our own "mash up" group reading, with each student taking a small section, so they can hear the sounds of the words, and how parallel structure is used to create rhythm. As we re-read and analyze, I want to give them a sense of the historical connections of Lincoln's use of antithesis, for example, to "the characteristic organization of Greek prose by polarities". ⁷ I want them to understand how Lincoln's more vernacular word choice is tied to the historical context, as "events were moving too fast for the more languid phrases of the past", ⁸as well as understanding how his use of monosyllables affects the "rhythmic pacing". ⁹

From there, we'll look at two sets of speeches paired around common themes or time periods: Senator Huey Long's "Every Man a King" speech and FDR's Fireside Chat on "Farmers and Laborers" (both addressing the issue of hard economic times), followed by President John F Kennedy's "Space Exploration" speech, paired with President Ronald Reagan's "Challenger" speech.

President Roosevelt and Senator Long are both voicing responses to hard economic times during The Great Depression. Both speeches utilize biblical allusions, and strong appeals to ethos, pathos and logos, underscored by use of parallel structure and anaphora. Both men also utilized the then new technology of radio to connect with the public. As an interesting side note, Samuel I Rosenman, a speechwriter for FDR, said that "Roosevelt feared a challenge from the Democratic populist-progressive Long more than from any Republican". ¹⁰ At the time of this speech, delivered a year before FDR's Fireside Chat, The New Deal had not delivered the country from The Great Depression, so Long was presenting the ordinary citizens of Louisiana with his "Share the Wealth" program. He establishes his ethos by repeatedly invoking "the law of the Lord" and frequently using personal pronouns, as when laying out his main claim that "in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people…", and repeatedly referring to his audience as "my friends". This reinforces the idea that he is there with the people, on their side. Long appeals to the emotions of the unemployed when he sets up his claim that the problem in the country is not a lack of resources, but "the greed of a few men…" for whom "…pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses", such that ordinary people do not have money to buy the available goods. This is underscored by his use of anaphora ("We have the farm problem…..We have a home loan problem…We have trouble, my friends…") and parallelism ("we have in America today more wealth, more goods, more food…") ¹¹Long also sets up a logical appeal by detailing the economic statistics of his plan in the second half of his speech.

Roosevelt also appeals to logos in Fireside Chat #8, when he lays out the logical reasoning behind his work projects to conserve water and control soil erosion to battle the severe drought conditions affecting farmers in September 1936, as the country continued in the grip of The Great Depression. He builds his ethos in the beginning of his speech by speaking of his travels to affected areas, and underscores this idea with anaphora: "I saw drought devastation…I saw cattlemen…I saw livestock….I saw other farm families…", ¹² to add to the idea that – like Long- he has a personal connection with, and concern for, those facing hardship. He also does this when beginning by addressing them as "My friends". But whereas Long's purpose was to galvanize, FDR's was more to reassure and, stylistically, to combine "the intimacy of the medium... with a great orator's sense of the poetic". ¹³ Timothy Raphael observes that "The compelling narratives of Roosevelt's "chats"…eschewed facts and figures in favor of anecdotes and analogies", ¹⁴ to bolster his credibility with those suffering during the depression. Roosevelt uses parallelism to underscore an emotional appeal when he follows up with a reflection on the personal qualities of "indomitable American farmers and stockmen and their wives and children who have carried on through desperate days, and inspire us with their self-reliance, their tenacity and their courage." ¹⁵ He wants them to feel he acknowledges their struggles. Likewise, he says, "we are members one of another", a biblical allusion to a "New Testament description of a community of faith", ¹⁶ wherein all are connected, to inspire people to persevere, even in the face of struggle. I want students to make these connections between strategies and see how FDR "used radio messages as a way of connecting his audience, drawing together people" who might never actually meet, ¹⁷ while Long used it to "build a national following" and "bring new hope to people ground into poverty". ¹⁸

President John F Kennedy's speech on the early United States space program and Ronald Reagan's speech on the shuttle Challenger tragedy both address the issue of space exploration at different points in its history, but the core message is the same: the space program must continue, regardless of expense or difficulties encountered. Kennedy uses antithesis to contrast "change" and "challenge", "hope" and "fear", "cost" and "reward", "behind" and "forward", "easy" and "hard" to emphasize the direction he believes the space program must move: ahead. He makes reference to history to build his ethos, saying "This country was conquered by those who moved forward, and so will space". He concedes that the cost is high, but emphasizes the need to press onward as "we must be bold". Using rhetorical questions to make people think about "Why the moon?" he answers, employing more antithesis, that it's not because it is easy, but because it is hard. ¹⁹ Because Reagan is speaking to the pain of the nation, he uses the pronoun "we" several times to connect with his audience and include everyone in the collective mourning. He also uses antithesis at the beginning of his speech to juxtapose a past accident with the Challenger disaster, and also says that "we have forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they…were aware", to make the point that even though this is an unprecedented tragedy, the crew knew the risks and accepted them. He contrasts "the fainthearted" with "the brave", ²⁰ implying that America must be brave, as the Challenger crew were. Peggy Noonan, who crafted the speech for the president, writes that it had to "make it clear to the children that life goes on" and "reassure the American people that the tragedy, though terrible, will not halt our efforts in space". ²¹ As Reagan said, "Nothing ends here-our hopes and our journeys continue." ²² I want students to see how the rhetoric of both presidents was crafted to convey a common message about national policy regarding space exploration, designed to comfort, reassure and engender support.

These will be followed by three sets of more contemporary speeches, showing different sides of current issues: President Obama's 2013 Immigration Reform Address, paired with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's SB1070 Speech; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's "Pressing Urban Issues and the California Political Scene" (focusing on education) paired with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's Education Reform Speech on YouTube, and Senate Floor Speeches on Minimum Wage Legislation on YouTube from Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Ted Cruz ("The Minimum Wage Hurts the Most Vulnerable Among Us").

In their speeches on immigration reform, President Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer both use repetition and appeals to ethos, pathos and logos to impart a sense of urgency regarding the issue, but I want students to see how these strategies ultimately convey a markedly different tone in each piece. Obama begins by appealing to pathos as he identifies with his audience and uses "goodwill and flattery to emotionally engage…by means of empathy", ²³ referring to them as "good friends" and acknowledging the mascot and principal of the school where he is speaking. He concludes his introduction by emphasizing the need for immigration reform, conveying urgency through repetition of the phrase "Now it she time". He goes on to acknowledge the system is "broken" but relates that others are willing to work with him "to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants", setting a tone of acceptance and inclusiveness. He also repeats the word "stronger" to reinforce the impact he feels this will have on the economy and future of the country. He uses repetition throughout the speech to emphasize "the important role of the immigrants in America and the necessity of a country and a politician who cares for them", ²⁴ the latter bolstering his ethos. He also builds his ethos when he lists the steps his administration has already taken to deal with the issue. He appeals to logic when he outlines the economic reasons leading up to his claim, which is "Congress must act", and referring to statistics about the scope of the problem. He ends with an emotional appeal, an anecdote about a man in the audience who benefited from legislation he signed, using him as a symbol representing all immigrants striving for better opportunities. ²⁵

In her speech on signing SB1070, Arizona's immigration legislation, Governor Jan Brewer also uses repetition of words to underscore her message, repeating "protecting our citizens" and "protecting our state" to reinforce her purpose in signing the legislation. Her word choice reflects the negative effects of illegal immigration in that state that she claims she is guarding against, such as "crime", "violence, "murderous greed" and "destruction". This emotionally charged word choice, paired with her position that the bill seeks to "solve a crisis we didn't create", sets up an urgent and somewhat defensive tone, as Brewer uses ethos, pathos and logos to support her position. She uses repetition to build her ethos, referring to her time in public service and her assertion that she has "worked without fail to solve problems diligently and practically...always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the rule of law", as well as how she has worked "to bring people together, no matter the color of their skin." She wants her audience to feel that she is always fair and they can trust her. She refers first to how she "listened patiently to both sides", then turns to an emotional appeal as she contrasts that with the "decades of federal inaction and misguided policy" she puts forward as her main reason for taking this action. She goes on to appeal to logic, outlining how she will ensure individual civil rights are protected, anticipating those who "have an interest in seeing us fail". She ends, once again, with repetition to emphasize what her beliefs are about the laws of Arizona ²⁶

When it comes to education reform, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal have very different perspectives on which steps need to be taken to improve educational opportunities for America's children. Although they use similar rhetorical strategies, the ways in which they use them reflect these differences. Villaraigosa uses ethos, pathos, logos and repetition in ways that underscore his values, repeating, "I believe that people working together can change the world…I believe that in a democratic society…we have a responsibility to serve". He begins by using an emotional appeal to identify with his audience by acknowledging them and their work as members of the press, "doing what you believe in". This sets up a reference to the effects of Hurricane Katrina, in which he uses parallelism and repetition to make his point, "if you're flat broke or flat on your back, you may be flat out of luck in a time of serious jeopardy". He goes on to use a logical appeal as he lists statistics on poverty in America and talks about the work of the Mayor's Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity and their recommendations for moving education reform to the front of national debate, which he lists in detail. Finally, he ends by appealing to ethos, stating "I say this as one who knows…Somebody gave me a second chance" to bolster his credibility to speak on the issue and underscore his point that everyone needs to work together to combat poverty through providing better educational opportunities ²⁷

In speaking on education reform to the Brookings Institution, Governor Jindal also uses appeals to ethos, pathos and logos, as well as repetition, in a speech framed with a series of anecdotes reflecting his belief (used to open his talk and appeal to the emotion of the audience) that "The United States of America does not provide equal opportunities in education". He emphasizes this by repeating "We do not" twice during his opening, as well as repeating "You do not have the resources" when referring to parents who cannot enroll their child in a different school if "your child attends a failing school".

He uses words with negative, emotionally charged connotations, such as "scandalous" and "shameful" to describe the teachers unions that he believes are responsible for "stopping school choice from occurring all over the country". He claims that "Quality is driven by competition, accountability and autonomy". To support that claim, he relates a series of anecdotes that unify his argument, including stories about students who benefited from The New Orleans Scholarship Program and other programs which provide opportunities for school choice. Throughout these stories he weaves statistics that convey a logical appeal, emphasizing the numbers of students in Louisiana who have benefited from these programs and the growth of charter schools. He ends – as Villaraigosa did – by bolstering his ethos, saying "Neither should equal opportunity in education be considered an ideological issue…Equal opportunity in education should not be a conservative position, or a liberal position, it's an American position.", to leave the impression that his position is in the best interests of every American ²⁸

Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren both gave speeches on the Floor of the US Senate on the issue of raising the minimum wage. Senator Cruz's speech came just before the Senate vote on the issue and Senator Warren's just after. As this is the last set of speeches we will look at together as a class, we'll be viewing them on YouTube without reading the transcripts, and focusing on how Warren and Cruz use persuasive rhetorical strategies to convey very different viewpoints to the same audience. Students will also think about their own opinions on the topic. As we begin, they will draw two t-charts in their casebooks (one for Warren and one for Cruz). On the left side they will record what "they say", and on the right side, what "I say" in response. This will help them think about the specific points each Senator is making and what evidence they're using for support, as well as their own reactions. When examining strategies, I want them to notice that both speakers use personal anecdotes about their parents to convey an emotional appeal, designed to persuade their colleagues to accept their very different positions. Warren also uses it to bolster her ethos, saying, "I know this story because it's my story", ²⁹ to get readers to accept her authority to speak because of her background and her personal interest in the issue. Both use statistics and facts about the history of the minimum wage to create a logical appeal, with Cruz using this to support his position that a minimum wage hike would put businesses out of work and create layoffs, using Burger King as an example, and also breaking down the unemployment rate by race, pointing out inequities. Meanwhile, Warren uses it to illustrate the numbers of Senators who voted for the legislation, to contrast them with the ones who created a filibuster to stop it from passing, which she calls "outrageous". Cruz uses visuals to underscore what he calls the "hard, brutal reality, of the Obama minimum wage", ³⁰ repeating "brutal reality" twice, for emphasis, and ends with another anecdote for emotional effect. Warren also uses repetition to emphasize her position that passing this raise is "a chance" that they shouldn't let "get away", because it's been "7 years" since the last minimum wage hike. ³¹ We will discuss which speech students found more persuasive, based on their notes and analysis, as well as discussing whether the issue of gender played any part in the effectiveness of the delivery or reception of the message. Students will also locate additional speeches (either in print or on YouTube) related to their individual topics to inform their writing, described below.