The research question for this thesis then appears as the following: How George W. Bush and Barack Obama have used the art of rhetoric to legitimise their counterterrorism policy?
The hypothesis I will verify through this thesis assumes that Bush and Obama both heavily exploited the value of “freedom” to unite the American people against terror by systematically referring to the notion of “threat” in their public discourses. In this manner, they claimed their nation and then their “freedom” was threatened by terrorism, and therefore they had to act and fight against terrorism, thus to support the president’s counterterrorism policy. Bush and Obama both used the same technique of propaganda, which consists in, as explains Olivier Nay in Lexique de science politique: Vie et institutions politiques (2008: 148), declaring we don't want to make war, but we are forced to defend ourselves, and even in a preventive manner. Nonetheless, in an effort to take distance from Bush, Obama might have adapted those common themes according to his political stance. A political actor borrows from the “always already there”, a “preconstructed” (Pécheux, 1990 in Le Bart, 1998: 47) that he adapts to actual issues. In fact, politics draw on available political repertoire that they adjust to the roles they have to play (id.).
…show more content…
A textometric software named TXM will be used to proceed to the PDA (political discourse analysis). Through this software, lists of words will be examined regarding their high frequency within the corpus by systematically referring to their context of enunciation. This method will allow us to interpret the words’ meanings within their
In his “State of the Union” speech, President Barack Obama effectively uses the rhetorical devices of Ethos, Pathos and Logos to convey a more convincing message to the citizens of the United States to urge them to follow the example of the many people that have made their nation greater.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Imagine your son or daughter holding a gun, and accidently shoot his family member. Person shows up to a school building armed and shot 20 innocent children who would’ve had bright future ahead of them. This situation happened multiple times in the past. It is an alarm, sounding for us to create better gun control. America is a huge nations and gun control became a major problem as mentioned in the speech, fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun monthly. Everyone can deliver a speech, yet not everyone can draw the reader’s attention, sell their words, and gain attractions from the audience. A great speaker is known for his usage of appeals. LaPierre called
President Obama’s Address to the nation was presented on January 5, 2016. His speech was shown on all of the major network stations. The main goal of his speech was to get the point across to the nation about the increasing problem of gun use. His speech really focused on the issue of gun control and if it would benefit the country. Overall, the biggest idea of his Address was that gun control is a large issue in the United States. The way to prevent deaths caused by firearms can be prevented in other ways than taking peoples guns away. The examples brought up in this Address really stood out to me. The use of personal, national, and global examples really made his speech stronger on the topic of effectiveness.
Through capturing these events and images in the minds of his audience, Obama writes, “Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world” (14). Obama’s references of biblical and historical events which are known today from history as powerful stories of difficulty and perseverance is used to describe the struggles of racial inequality. As racial inequality itself is a huge problem which creates separation between races even till today, Obama’s allusion to these events match well with putting into perspective
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
President Obama’s Inaugural Speech: Rhetorical Analysis. Barrack Obama’s inauguration speech successfully accomplished his goal by using rhetoric to ensure our nation that we will be in safe hands. The speech is similar to ideas obtained from the founding documents and Martin Luther King’s speech to establish ‘our’ goal to get together and take some action on the problems our country is now facing. As President Barack Obama starts his speech, he keeps himself from using ‘me’, ‘myself’, and ‘I’ and replacing it with ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘together’ to achieve his ethos.
Our nation is plagued with problems, and we look to one man to solve them all, president Barack Obama. He plans to solve these in his address to the United Nations General Assembly given on September 24, 2014 in New York City. President Obama gave this speech in response to major issues that were taking place at that time. Some of the issues he talked about were Ebola, which was a deadly disease running rampant through West Africa, the conflict in Ukraine having to do with Russia, and the issue of ISIL terrorist groups. Obama talks about all of these issues to bring up one major goal of this argument. The goal is for the international community to come together to sort out and overcome the problems. He tackles two questions in this argument, “whether the nations here today will be able to renew the purpose of the UN’s founding; and
Within both Presidential speeches diction is used to similarly inform and alleviate the American people. Franklin D. Roosevelt admits he and the U.S. government were “deceived” (5) by a “deliberately planned” (5) attack which, he declares, will be remembered with “infamy” (2). Roosevelt targets Japan with spiteful and traitorous words letting Americans know he too is vengeful and offended by the attack. George W. Bush gathers nations together for the “fight of all” (35) against the “murderers” (13) of al Qaeda to stop their “evil and destruction” (16). George W. Bush cons the idea of al Qaeda being a natural embodiment of evil, boldly shaming the group for their atrocities to show his disagreement with al Qaeda’s beliefs. Likewise, he and Bush reveal the enemy with malice statements, providing model images of the enemy for Americans to accept and channel their hate towards. Both Presidents know of the panic and fear the American people now have, therefore they each use powerful words to portray fearlessness of the enemy. According to Roosevelt, the actions of the Japanese empire “...
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
Many would argue that President Obama is one of the most effective speakers in the decade. With his amazing speeches, he captivates his audience with his emotion and official tone.
When Barack Obama ran for presidency, there were a lot of questions about his race, color, and whether he was born in the U.S.. The comments from his pastor Jeremiah Wright put him in an awkward situation, so he decided to give this speech to prove the point that we are all the same and live in the same country, so there shouldn’t be any discrimination among anyone. In his speech, Obama uses rhetorical devices to explain how race discrimination is affecting our country and us in every way possible. The use of rhetorical devices in this speech has strong effects on the audience. The use of allusion, symbolism, optimistic tone, and repetition of words gives the speech a strong argumentative tone. He argues the fact that to be able to achieve such big goals and how out country was supposed to be from the beginning, we need to stay united and rely on younger
Let’s take a step back to 2008 in Philadelphia. Neither the city nor year suggests that history is going to be made. On March 18, 2008, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Barack Obama took the stage and delivered a speech that would portray the racial landscape of his presidency. In his speech, Obama points out rhetorical tactics to support his argument that we as Americans in this country need to be united for racial equality to exist. He begins his speech with a back story to highlight the kairotic moment present, then appeals to pathos through lots of examples of racial injustice to signify the need for such change, and then uses his appeals to ethos to suggest ways of change for Americans, both black and white. The speech was very successful: people from both sides praised his bravery, and later the same year, Obama demolished McCain in a close victory to secure his presidency.
Rhetoric is the art of effective speaking or writing, and persuasion. Most people use rhetoric numerous of times in their everyday life without their concern or knowing.
As the quarter progressed, these ten weeks into the course, writing 39C had taught me a lot about the true meaning of Rhetoric and Research. Earlier, in this course, I acknowledged that “Rhetoric” is the art of persuasion that is endeavored by the human beings to persuade individuals with their words. Moreover, as I acquired additional information about the research and rhetoric in this course, I also identified that rhetoric is always around us, but most of the time we do not happen to see it. We are always already in the rhetorical situation which we have used the rhetoric since the day we start living our first moment of our life. There is always someone who is trying to persuade us in some way. After few weeks of learning “what rhetoric