On Tuesday night President Obama addressed the American public in the State of the Union address for his second time as president. Facing a divided government has always been a challenge for incumbent presidents, even when the Democratic Party was the majority last year we heard grumbles from the other party (i.e. Joe Wilson "You Lie!"). However, the congress that gathered in the capitol on Tuesday carried a somber air grieving over the tragedy of the shootings of congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the people of Tucson. Obama observed a broken and divided America, and used his common message of unity and hope to address his course of action for the rest of his presidency. He carefully structured his speech for a dual audience. He conveyed the idea of collective compromise to a divided audience in Congress, and appealed to the pathos of the audience of the American people by addressing them as "family members".
Obama opened by addressing his audiences as a part of "the American family" this phrase appealed the ethos and pathos of his audiences. The definition of "family" is common and understood by all Americans and taps into both their hearts and their minds. He used the definition of family as an extended metaphor to the current state of our nation. A family has divisions, but grows from continuing toward the betterment of the whole family, they grieve together, and work together. The established theme of familial compromise and growth continues throughout the rest of his speech.
After his opening pathetic appeal, Obama switched to strict business, but the overlying pattern of his speech conveyed his message of compromise even when listeners became lost in the policy talk and numbers. An opinion column in the New York Times featured a conversation between columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins as they provided a review of Obama's State of the Union address. Brooks provided illuminating insight to the rhetorical structure of Obama's speech when he stated, "the three things that the president emphasized were all worthy, important policies that have significant bipartisan support...the really big tasks were mentioned but not emphasized". The speech that Brook’s described as “modest” exhibited Obama’s keen sense of his network of interpretation. The president understood that he was facing a divided congress and a divided America, and therefore emphasized the topics that few people could dispute.
The effectiveness of Obama’s delivery was apparent to me as I sat in a room filled with bipartisan college students. The Penn State College Democrats, the College Republicans, and a few Tea Party members meet in one room in Willard to watch the speech together. As the president discussed research, education reform, and infrastructure spending, there were few scoffs or signs of disagreement from any party. The lesser-emphasized points of tax reform, immigration reform, and entitlement reform are topics that receive much more debate and were purposefully mentioned and moved away from. The rhetorical pattern of Obama's speech address a divided congress with a communal tone, and his message of hope and compromise was for a grieving and broken American public who needed comfort from their "American Family".
Obama opened by addressing his audiences as a part of "the American family" this phrase appealed the ethos and pathos of his audiences. The definition of "family" is common and understood by all Americans and taps into both their hearts and their minds. He used the definition of family as an extended metaphor to the current state of our nation. A family has divisions, but grows from continuing toward the betterment of the whole family, they grieve together, and work together. The established theme of familial compromise and growth continues throughout the rest of his speech.
After his opening pathetic appeal, Obama switched to strict business, but the overlying pattern of his speech conveyed his message of compromise even when listeners became lost in the policy talk and numbers. An opinion column in the New York Times featured a conversation between columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins as they provided a review of Obama's State of the Union address. Brooks provided illuminating insight to the rhetorical structure of Obama's speech when he stated, "the three things that the president emphasized were all worthy, important policies that have significant bipartisan support...the really big tasks were mentioned but not emphasized". The speech that Brook’s described as “modest” exhibited Obama’s keen sense of his network of interpretation. The president understood that he was facing a divided congress and a divided America, and therefore emphasized the topics that few people could dispute.
The effectiveness of Obama’s delivery was apparent to me as I sat in a room filled with bipartisan college students. The Penn State College Democrats, the College Republicans, and a few Tea Party members meet in one room in Willard to watch the speech together. As the president discussed research, education reform, and infrastructure spending, there were few scoffs or signs of disagreement from any party. The lesser-emphasized points of tax reform, immigration reform, and entitlement reform are topics that receive much more debate and were purposefully mentioned and moved away from. The rhetorical pattern of Obama's speech address a divided congress with a communal tone, and his message of hope and compromise was for a grieving and broken American public who needed comfort from their "American Family".
No comments:
Post a Comment