President Bush and Prime Minister Blair delivered speeches shortly after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia, which occurred on September 11, 2001. The Former President George W Bush utilized pathos, anaphora, and personification in his speech to convey an optimistic tone. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, addressing the same topic, utilized mild invective and parallel structure to express an affirmative tone.
43rd President of the United States, George Bush, in his speech, “9/11 Address to the Nation” addresses the nation about the day of September 11, 2001. Bush’s purpose is to convey the events of September 11, 2001 and what was and will be done about them. He adopts a serious yet somber tone in order to appeal to the strong and emotional side of the public and to his listeners around the world.
Since the presidency of George Washington, the people of The United States have turned to the commander in chief in times of distress to receive assurance and hope. Kurt Ritter comments on President Reagan’s address to the nation given on January 28, 1986 saying, “Perhaps no president could have fulfilled the country’s need to mourn and, then, to begin to heal as skillfully as Ronald Reagan (Ritter, 3).” On that morning the space shuttle “Challenger” violently exploded while the nation watched live televised coverage of the shuttle’s launch. President Reagan was scheduled to give his State of the Union Address on that date, but instead he reached out the country in this time of mourning. He spoke from his oval office to heartbroken teachers, children, NASA Space Engineers, and the entire country. President Reagan’s reaction to the tragedy of the challenger guided the United States out of despair and into a new light of hope behind seven fallen heroes. In this essay I will show that Reagan gave our country a new light of hope through his emphasis on Pathos but also incorporating Ethos and Logos in this memorable presentation.
George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation” is a speech in which he talks about the catastrophic event on September eleventh, 2001. Two airplanes crash into the Twin Towers in New York City on this day, shocking the entire world. He addresses this speech to the people of America on the night of the disastrous event, to let the people of the United States know what is going on. This speech explains how the United States is a strong country, the motives behind the event, as well as to bring the United States together and stronger.
Jess Walter creates a post 9/11 world that balances precariously between real and surreal. It is real enough that the reader is able to comprehend how awful the attack truly was; but surreal enough that the reader feels the same way most Americans did at Ground Zero—confused, frightened, and grief stricken. Remy, the unwilling hero in all of this is exposed to many different forms of grief both public and personal. Using irony and satire, Walter critiques the way public forms of grief were presented as the only viable ways of grieving after 9/11. Reporters wanted to broadcast each and every loss. The government wanted to exploit the grief of the American people so that they could continue what they were doing in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq with the abuse of detainees and electronic eavesdropping, but this time in the name of “counterterrorism”. The Portraits in Grief and Edgar’s monologue about personal grief versus general grief are prime example of how grief during this time was commercialized.
When lives are involved they are given the undesirable task of speaking to a frightened and unstable nation. The goal of the speech is to grieve with the nation, as well as lift the nation up so that the citizens do not dwell on the tragedy, but to rise from the tragedy. While mourning they need to remember to stay strong and to come together as there are strength in numbers. Each president does this through a eulogy that displays ethos and pathos through tone, quotations, repetition and a “unique blend of eulogistic content and elements” (Campbell and Jamieson, 2008, p. 75). In times of tragedy it is the president’s job to offer solace and calm through a responsive speech. Their primary goals of this speech or eulogy is to help the nation come to terms with the death of a loved one, with the president helping the nation to make sense of the tragedy, “transform symbols of destruction to symbols of renewal” and finally to explain how he ensures it will not happen again (Campbell and Jamieson, 2008, p.
Two similar events, two similar speeches, and two similar men. Yet one has a spot on the top 100 speeches list and one has nearly faded away from all remembrance. Speeches are given to make and impact or a difference, and in this instance both brought relief to a nation in grief, and both are rhetorically sound. Ronald W. Reagan is such a president that left the nation with outstanding rhetorically great speeches. One of these is his world-renowned speech given to the nation after the explosion of the Challenger shuttle January 26, 1986. George W. Bush, a president just as distinguished as Reagan delivers a speech on February 1, 2003 on a parallel account. Another shuttle, the Columbia, exploded with similar characteristics, and in much the same way, Bush’s speech resembled Reagan’s address to the nation. There were many parallels with the two speeches, structure and content wise; however Reagan conveys better use of rhetorical strategies and provides the audience with greater hope and condolence. Both men use the power of ethos and pathos, but one man, Ronald Reagan, uses ethos and rhetoric in a way that Bush didn’t, he created a speech that embodies what America is about, hope.
There were several things about the speech that showed Reagan (or his writers) had reviewed the audience and tailored the speech for them. Reagan thanked the group and referred to some by names such as Senator Hawkins and the larger group of the Florida Delegation by name. Knowing this was an evangelical group there
The world would have been very different if we had not landed on the moon and made it back safely those couple days in July of 1969. Many people were nervous and skeptical that the mission of Apollo 11 wouldn’t work, some even coming to the worst case scenario. As a president, President Nixon had to be prepared for any outcome of this great event in history. Regardless of the mission’s success, a speech was prepared for the outcome of Apollo 11 failing. The speech, In Event of Moon Disaster, written for President Nixon, effectively uses pathos and logos to appeal to a distraught nation in fragile time and uses descriptive language to regain the embodiment of hope again in the country. Because it was written before the event took place, however,
In 1987, the President of the United States at the time was Ronald Reagan. Everyone has their differing opinions when it comes to judging the quality of the job a President has done. There are many factors that cause biased opinions. Some of these include your political party affiliation, your viewpoint on the social matters that were going on at the time, and your economic standing. Despite all these varying viewpoints, people can agree upon one thing when it comes to Ronald Reagan. That one thing is that in 1987, when turmoil due to post-war political issues split Germany into two sides, Reagan made a speech that is known as “The Speech at Brandenburg Gate” that altered the course of history. His exalted rhetoric was highly touted at the
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a powerful speech before Congress on December 8th 1941, the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. His purpose in addressing the country in this way is his attempt to calm the American People and avoid chaos across the country. Roosevelt is aware of the impact that the event has had on the Citizens. As their leader, he forcefully reassures the population that they will be safe. The President emphasizes that the United States would not allow the attacks to affect the country though his use of rhetorical devices, including pathos.
On a cold winter’s morning on the 28th day of January in the year 1986, America was profoundly shaken and sent to its knees as the space shuttle Challenger gruesomely exploded just seconds after launching. The seven members of its crew, including one civilian teacher, were all lost. This was a game changer, we had never lost a single astronaut in flight. The United States by this time had unfortunately grown accustomed to successful space missions, and this reality check was all too sudden, too brutal for a complacent and oblivious nation (“Space”). The outbreak of sympathy that poured from its citizens had not been seen since President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. The disturbing scenes were shown repeatedly on news networks which undeniably made it troublesome to keep it from haunting the nation’s cognizance (“Space”). The current president had more than situation to address, he had the problematic undertaking of gracefully picking America back up by its boot straps.
The day of the challenger explosion Reagan had originally planned on speaking to the nation to report on the state of the union, but this unfortunate event caused him to have a sudden shift in plans. He had to quickly put together a speech appropriate for the occasion and construct an argument to defend the NASA program. The shuttle challenger explosion caused many Americans heartache as well as great uncertainty about what would become of NASA. In the speech, Reagan spoke to the nation as a whole and tried to console everyone as best he could. He honored the men whom risked and ultimately lost their lives in this horrible accident. He also addressed the families of the seven brave men directly in his speech.