Political Campaign Rhetoric

Political Campaign Rhetoric

In 2004 the United States of America held a presidential election as it does every four years. Throughout the process, from primary to convention, from the debates to Election Day, both the candidates and the media relied on rhetoric to influence the thoughts of the electorate. Because of the close results of the 2000 election and the bitter court battle that followed, the rhetoric of the campaigns of both major candidates in 2004 was stronger and more focused than before. To show the uses of this rhetoric and its effects on the public through the media, several topics are discussed within. First, the language used by the candidates, followed by a discussion of the political conventions and a look at the rhetoric of journalism and the way that the media effects the government.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides several definitions of rhetoric. Several rather different concepts are called rhetoric, but this paper is concerned with "Speech or writing expressed in terms calculated to persuade; hence (often in depreciatory sense), language characterized by artificial or ostentatious expression." Another term often found in articles about rhetoric, and sometimes used interchangeably by those unfamiliar with its meaning, is semantics. The definition of semantics offered by the Oxford English Dictionary that I find most relevant to this discussion, is "the relationships between linguistics symbols and their meaning." In order to understand the rhetoric that political candidates use, we must understand the semantics of their words.

During a political campaign, the candidate must modulate their words very carefully, so much so that sometimes it seems that he or she becomes an entirely different person. In order to attract new supporters, and to not alienate those who already have given their support, the candidate's statements must always be carefully constructed. Typically, each candidate chooses issues that they feel they can use to gain support and when speaking will speak in generalities about the issue, providing a superficial explanation of what they see as the problem. When discussing how they intend to fix the problem, the candidate will rarely give many details about their plan, as the details could serve to alienate voters. For example, when Nixon stated that he intended to achieve "peace with honor" in Vietnam, the public, weary from years of conflict, would have been less likely to elect him had they known that he intended to achieve it by methods such as "Operation Linebacker," an around the clock saturation bombing campaign against North Vietnam. Terence Ripmaster points out the use of this type of rhetoric by both candidates when he writes "Bush insisted that his tax cuts for the rich 'create jobs for everyone'; Kerry promised that if elected, he would provide 'tax cuts for the middle class.' Neither provided statistics to help us evaluate their promises" (2005).

Ripmaster illustrates another case of a candidate choosing to focus on issues that will further their cause when he writes "Because of the participation of social and cultural conservatives in the 2004 election, we were exposed to the vague terms 'values' and 'faith-based'" (2005). He argues that Bush and his supporters used this rhetoric to convince voters that his values were morally superior, and continues by stating "Politically speaking, a vote for Bush was a vote for his values. In the political rhetoric surrounding values, science, intelligent discourse, and constitutional considerations disappear into the abyss of charges and countercharges. Toss in the word God and you have a total lack of clarity" (2005). I believe this says something about the nature of religion in our society. There exists a certain double standard: in general, Americans clearly tend to accept that which is proven scientifically as true. At the same time, however, religious Americans often claim that they accept the sacred text of their particular faith as incontrovertible truth. I believe that this is mostly rhetoric on the part of the religious individual intended as a declaration of faith, because when science contradicts religious text, the dominant culture, which is essentially Christian, tends to accept the scientific explanation. Considering the pre-rational nature of religious affiliation for many Americans, then, we can see how Bush's rhetoric concerning values and faith was not unlike propaganda, which seeks to short circuit rational thought in order to illicit some desired response from the audience. By only discussing values on the most superficial level, Bush was able to use people's faith to gain their support, when after further debate and consideration they may have found that they did not agree with his stance.

In contrast with the typical conservative appeal to people of faith used by President Bush is the typical liberal appeal to the class consciousness of the working class used by former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. On the campaign trail he spoke of two Americas: people who are "set for life" and do not work, and those who scrape by living paycheck to paycheck (Miller 2005). According to Miller, Edwards intends for the audience to imagine the first as idle aristocrats. Considering the semantics of the language used, the term "set for life," describing the non-worker, and the vivid imagery of the wage earner struggling to survive form a sharp contrast that is intended to convince the working class individual of two things: firstly, that they are in conflict with the upper class, in this case the "idle aristocrats," and second, that John Edwards understands the plight of the working class and will fight for them. However, both of these propositions are misleading. Miller cites statistics from the US Census Bureau that identify exactly who these non-workers are. Of the 142 million non-workers, the largest group is children at 72 million. The group into which idle aristocrats would fit, jobless individuals who are not seeking employment, includes 3 million, and they are certainly not all rich. As the second proposition is concerned, it is misleading for John Edwards to represent himself as understanding the working class when, according to The Center for Public Integrity, he earns at least $545,671 yearly and has a net worth of $14,283,165 to $44,602,000 (2005).

With all the attention given by the media, one would expect that the political convention serves an important purpose to the electoral process. Certainly at some time in our history they did, but Gregg Hoffmann argues that because modern communications technology allows us to know the nominees and platforms of each party before the convention,