All issues regarding the elections are either relating t decisions of the past, conflicts of the present or choices of the future, so the Obama and Romney, as skilled rhetoricians, used the corresponding verb tenses to argue about a topic.
Both candidates are dying to blame the other in any way they can. If they dream of something at night, it's probably not that they win but that the other loses. Throughout the debate they were constantly blaming each other and telling the audience what the other candidate did wrong in the past, also mentioning occasionally the good things they've each has done. Obama went out of the topic of the debate just to exploit one of Romney's defects. Obama said, "First of all, Governor Romney talks about small businesses, but Governor, when you were in Massachusetts, small businesses' development ranked about 48, I think, out of 50 states." By having the verbs in past tense, uses forensic rhetoric to blame Romney for something. Whose fault is it that small businesses are doing badly? Romney did something wrong. Obama avoids actually responding to questions by simply blaming Romney for something. Later in the debate, Obama said, " When you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference." As he was discussing the economic problems and the need for improving education, Obama blames Romney for saying something bad. What Romney said could have been out of context and even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean that it's Romney's fault that the US has problems. However, the audience just hears "Romney, education, bad."
Another decisive topic of the campaign is the values of the candidates. People want to know what they do in the present, how they think and how they behave, so the candidates respond by using present tense rhetorics. Obama choses to use present tense, even though he might be talking about the past, to attack his opponent's values. He said, "The policies that you're promoting actually don't help small businesses. And the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top." While referring to Romney's governorship, which ended in 2007, Obama talks in present tense to attack Romney's way of thinking and ethics. The audience might think that Romney is still doing those things and hurting entrepreneurs, but even though he might in the future, he is not actually doing that now.
In another point of the debate, Obama said, "But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s." Ouch, that hurts. Obama attacks Romney's values by saying that his policies are outdated. This example shows that the present tense is necessary to attack values.
The presidential campaigns are, after all, about the future. The candidates manipulate voters by shifting to the present and past tense, but what mostly matter is the future tense: what will each do if he wins? Talking about the debate on my Macroeconomics class, I heard someone say that he had liked Romney more because he had a plan and stated his policies. I don't think he actually did, Romney just spoke in future tense as he said abstract ideas that relate to improvement, making the viewers believe that he was talking about an actual plan. Romney said, "I will get America working again and see rising take- home pay again. And I'll do it with five simple steps." He later said that America will become energy independent, more trade, better education, a balanced budget and improvement in small businesses. If you vote for Romney you will get these great things, if you don't you might not, or at least that's how some people get it. Had he said, "We need energy independence, more trade, better education, a balanced budget and improvement in small businesses," it would have not sound like a plan. As Romney used the future tense, the audience might believe he has a plan.
As Romney and Obama used verb tenses for persuasion, they also used logos, pathos and ethos to reach consensus with the voter (meaning that the voters agree to vote for one of them). Romney says, "First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel." As he describes the situation of Syria and Iran, Romney turns opinions and speculations into facts, or logos. He makes things sound like arguments that support his opinion towards the Middle East. Nobody actually knows how many people have died so far in Syria, Iran has other allies, Iran has coasts in two seas, and they don't need Syria to help Hezbollah if they do. With his confidence to make these things sound like facts, Romney gets people to support him.
Pathos is necessary for politicians to get any support from voters. Obama clearly uses pathos to get people to like him when he talks about 911. He says, "You know, after we killed bin Laden, I was at Ground Zero for a memorial and talked to a -- a -- a young woman who was 4 years old when 9/11 happened. And the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers, saying, Peyton (sp), I love you, and I will always watch over you. And for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation. And she said to me, you know, by finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to me. And when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world, and it tells Peyton (sp) that we did not forget her father." It is a tragic story as part of the event that traumatized many Americans, but it's also a manipulative tool of his persuasion. People get emotional with 911 and Obama knows that.
As he made people sentimental about 911, Obama also built up his ethos and made the audience see him like a leader or a hero. Referring to the same thing he says, " And -- and I make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership -- and those decisions are not always popular." By revealing a tactical flaw, people see him as trustworthy, and having mentioned it, as a leader.
The third presidential debate, as any other political scenario, was the perfect place to see rhetorics in action. Both candidates have good ideas as well as bad ideas, but what I've like the most about them is the lecture on persuasion they're teaching me. Four years ago I surely didn't try to analyze candidates' strategies because I thought they were speaking from their hearts. This year, however, I've been able to see how their performances get them votes.
Now see how they can be everything people like (aggressive, confident, nice, charismatic...):
No comments:
Post a Comment