A general question when writing a paper or speech is: How will my audience respond to what I have to say? The normal answer is hopefully: The way in which I want them to.
When President Obama and his writing staff sat down the past few weeks to get ready for the State of the Union Address, I am sure they were all worried how the American public were going to respond. Some writers will just ignore their audience and hope that what they have to say is persuasive enough. However, this seldom works out. The biggest way to make an audience respond to you is to say what they want to hear. In Obama's case, he had to get the message across that what he did this first year worked. After watching the State of the Union tonight, it seems his way of showing that he has done a good job is to point out small successes, blame President Bush for things that are going badly, and humor.
I feel that these always seem to be a good way to write persuasively. The person delivering the speech or writing the paper wants to over emphasize any success that has occurred. In Obama's speech, he seemed to use correlation and causation as the same thing. He also celebrated the fact that the recession is ending and that Wall Street is doing better thanks to the bailout, but only quietly mentioned the $1 trillion that was added to our national debt.
To blame someone else is a great technique. If the other person is wrong, and the only other option is you, then you must be right. This also happens if someone screws up before you, you can blame them for your shortfalls. This was part of the theme in Obama's speech. Which yes, President Bush does have blame for part of our current deficit and economic situation. So, on one hand the Obama is right to mention President Bush's shortfalls. However, when being persuasive, one must use some hyperbole. To blame someone more than needed can get those who are unsure to sway to your side, and get those who agree with you to get even more excited about the issue.
The last way in which I will talk about rhetoric situations is using humor. No one has ever gone wrong with making a joke. Ok, that may not be true, but lets run with it. Humor is a good way to keep people involved in the event. If you feel people slipping away or disagreeing with you, make a small joke that does not harm anyone. This will cause almost everyone to laugh (hopefully) and be in agreement with the speaker. It breaks tension, and it allows people to forget about the bigger picture for a second. Obama did this a few times in his speech tonight. He joked that Michelle Obama "embarrasses easily" and that he was hoping to "get some applause from the Republicans" when talking about tax cuts. These are harmless quips that show the speaker or writer is still human and not superior. It is a pretty good strategy in my eyes.
Overall, there are many different ways to approach rhetorical situations, and the three I have mentioned seem to work out very well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points with the humor idea- it's a great way to bring the audience in to your argument. I disagree with the part about blaming others, but it is an interesting point, and does provoke some thought.
ReplyDeleteYour argument, as I saw it, was that a speaker must tailor his speech to the expectations of the audience if he wants to gain their approval and support.
ReplyDeleteUsing Obama as the example for this is extremely effective; his speech is one that matters very much to the people around him and you close-listened-to his speech (so to speak) and analyzed what strategies he used to reach the nation. Good work!