At 8:00 PM the third and final Presidential Debate began. Both candidates sat in front of the camera and just by looking at them, I was sure that they would be using rhetoric from then on. President Obama and Romney both appealed to ethos just through appearance. Both of them wore American flag-shaped pins and in addition, Obama wore a blue tie while Romney wore one that was mostly red. To any spectator, this would just be another tie they're wearing on another day of their very public lives. On the contrary: Since they're always watched and analyzed by more people than they're aware of (I doubt they even imagine they're being examined by around thirty Colombian sixteen - year olds), they must strive to maintain the best reputation possible. So anything they do or choose is far from arbitrary. And so I realized, the color of their ties represents their political party: Red stands for Republican and Blue for Democrat. So right there, even before they began talking, both of them are already using ethos.
Obama also uses ethos when he says that that "as commander in chief" he "must keep the Americans safe." By beginning this sentence this way, he is subtly yet powerfully stating that he is no other than the one with the power right now, which gives him credibility and authority. In addition, with the last part of this sentence, he is appealing to pathos. By saying he will protect Americans, he is establishing a sort of paternal relationship with his audience, this way making them trust him and feel safe with him.
There's also plenty of logos in this debate. To go against Romney when he defended raising the military budget, Obama used facts and stated that the US currently spends more on the military than the combined military expenditures of the ten countries that follow the United States. This credible fact obviously shocks the audience and makes them lean a little closer towards Obama. However, Romney also succeeds in using logos. After explaining that education is crucial in order to have entrepreneurship and a successful economy in the future, he utilizes logos and adds that Massachusetts, the state he governed, ranked first out of all fifty states in terms of science and math education grades four through eight.
Although both ethos and logos are used by Obama and Romney, they both use pathos the most. Romney makes use of it while he arguments why terrorist should be killed: He makes allusion to many terrorist attacks including 9/11, which I consider to be America's soft spot. Just by mentioning the terrible even of September 11, 2001, thousands of victims or sympathetic individuals are leaning towards Romney. Also, when Romney says that the US "can't kill [its] ways out of this mess,"he appeals to pathos, as people rethink the situation and begin to believe (whether it's actually true or not) that the solution isn't murder.
Obama also counters Romney's arguments with pathos several times. He stated that Gaddafi "had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Osama bin Laden." By saying this, he is again earning the hearts of tons of Americans who suffered due to Gaddafi's actions and seek justice. He also uses pathos when he says he pictured himself as one of the relatives of those who were attacked. This way, he is sympathizing with his audience and portraying himself as a down to earth man who cares about those who suffer.
So when it comes to speaking about themselves, they are both very eloquent. However, they were not as effective when it came to interacting with the opponent. They constantly interrupted each other, made faces of disapproval and even got to the point of laughing at the other's argument. The both used forensic language in order to blame the other and bring him down. Obama blamed Romney several times of having a mistaken idea and blames him of contradicting himself on opinions and issues. Romney also blames Obama of not keeping his promises from the past election.
It's difficult, knowing how much good things to say about oneself and how much to blame the opponent. It must be just the exact amount: Not too much to have the audience realize what you're doing, but not so little that you have valuable opportunities go to waste. It's a hard decision, but rhetoric definitely makes it easier.
No comments:
Post a Comment