We’re all lucky to live in our nation’s capital of rhetoric. A rhetorical capital, if you will.
New York might have publishing, Los Angeles screenwriting, but D.C., has language. The past two weeks have showcased the importance of good rhetoric, as President Obama’s State of the Union is a prime example of the language of politics.
Rhetorical disclaimer: I’m a big fan of Obama’s public speaking ability. I do find his speech pattern to be a tad reminiscent of Captain Kirk, but he certainly knows how to be effective verbally.
One of the most prominent rhetorical devices is anaphora; Obama heavily relied on it two weeks ago.
Anaphora involves the repetition of a word or phrase several times, usually at the beginning of clauses, to instill in the audience the importance of the following statement.
It’s not a very difficult device. It’s easy to hear and understand, but the emphasis is made.
Anaphora has a powerful effect on audiences.
Obama repeated, “I will not” three times in three sentences when tackling the issue of jobs.
The use of “we will” five times in five sequential statements not only emphasizes the urgency we hear in that repetition; it also creates a sense of unity. This is not Obama calling on Congress or explaining his plans happen, this is a call to the American people.
Anaphora is effective because of how the human ear functions. We learn language through repetition. Obama’s words become ingrained in our minds in the same way.
Of course, for every brilliant move with words, there is another less effective rhetorical device waiting in the wings. This columnist isn’t even sure exactly what to call the “house of cards” portion of the speech or the “crying over spilt milk” move, but the nearest name I can find for them is cliché.
The house of cards reference is something mobile and the collapse evoked at least mirrors the actual economic crisis referred to, but I’m still shaking my head at the spilt milk incident.
Clichés do occasionally have their place, but certain phrases are groan-inducing for a reason. I applaud the use of humor in politics, but I don’t think his audience knew how to react. Being a good Midwestern girl, I agree that milk spills are not on the level of oil spills, but I must protest a phrase that’s — since we’re using clichés — as old as the hills.
On a personal note, I loved how the broadcasters cut to Michelle shaking her head at her husband’s folly after that remark.
I like to imagine that, as he was practicing in a White House mirror, she called to him that he should cut that bit out. It’s reassuring to know that at least the politics of a union don’t change regardless of what a partner’s job title is.
Then there was the whole “bringing America back” sentiment with which Obama concluded his speech.
The first thing I thought of was JT’s “bringing sexy back.” An unusual parallel, I admit. I remember hearing that song and thinking, “I didn’t know sexy went anywhere,” and upon hearing Obama’s address I thought, “I didn’t know America went anywhere.”
I don’t think it was his intention, but that’s what I heard. The nation is troubled economically and socially, and the speech laid out plans on how to fix the problems facing the Union. However I don’t think telling the nation we’ve lost our place in the world is an effective way of encouraging us to work to make it better. It’s not even totally a rhetorical problem. It just could have been handled in such a way that didn’t seem like Obama lost faith in America.
Nevertheless, if Shakespeare was right and all the world is a stage, Obama certainly knows his lines.
In a way, politics is acting and acting is all about how one performs the script. In both instances, the speaker needs effective delivery as well as effective rhetoric.
Did Obama convince the nation?
Only time will tell.
Francesca Morizio is double major in CAS and Kogod.
