Friday, September 26, 2008

Obama's DNC Speech as Evidence that he can Lead

Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention is a clear and resounding statement that he is a capable and sure leader. His voice and diction are forceful and dominating, and his ideas are structured in a clear, understandable way so that their message cannot be mistaken. This all creates a speech that is effective at enhancing his image as a world leader.

The first thing that stands out about Obama's speech is how strong it sounds. This is a necessary weapon to him right now. One of Obama's detractors' most prominent arguments questions his experience and his ability to command both the nation and its defenses. To fight this image, Obama must convince the voters that he is strong and confident in his ability to lead. With his sharp, clear, commanding voice, it's easy to imagine a powerful leader, someone able to direct armies and steer the country down the most fortuitous path. At one point in the speech he even silences the crowd as it begins to cheer, saying “listen now,” and the crowd quiets and listens. He is at least capable of directing the attention of his audience, and this proves his way of speaking an effective one.

Not only is his voice firm, but so are the words that he uses. Words like 'judgement,' 'courage,' and 'lead' show his confidence, and reflect some of their own meaning back upon him. And words like 'never,' which he uses constantly, create solid definitions, and that solidity gives the speech some fortitude. The speech's commanding strength becomes obvious when these words are put together correctly. “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.” Obama leaves no question as to his ability, and confidence in his ability, to lead our nation.

Part of his message is and always has been change for the better—his entire campaign is branded with the word change—and again his words exemplify his optimism. 'Better,' 'protect,' and 'new' are all very positive words, and words that appear many times in this speech. Even the word 'change' has, in this context, collected some positive connotation. And these words work. Obama's speech truly makes a national fresh start seem not only appealing, but plausible. Again, his confidence lends itself to the speech, making such a strong and challenging idea like changing an entire country sound doable. If such change is possible, then at the very least Obama's speech proves that he is the candidate to accomplish that. He is making it very clear to the voters that if that is what appeals to them, he is the only and obvious choice.

Opponents want him to be considered elitist, as though he discounts the less educated or simpler sects of society. To counter this, Obama has structured his speech to be clear and easily understood by anyone. In order to accomplish this, he takes an idea that he wants to communicate and breaks it into short, declarative sentences that, together, make up a comprehensive argument, yet can be digested separately and manageably. “America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back.” The sentences each hold their own reinforcement of the idea that Obama is try to get across, and together they act like all the strokes of a hammer that it takes to drive an argument into the minds of the voters. This structure also enables Obama to speak with his aforementioned strength by letting him emphasize and infuse each point with the same energy. It is certainly an effective strategy for communicating clearly, and any leader who can do that with his followers cannot be an unproductive one.

Commanding an audience is the earliest indication of a candidate's ability to command a nation. Based on the brilliant, polished, and effective way that Obama gives his speech, he has the potential to be a good leader. This speech is able to be so powerful because it is so strongly given and so easily received. The American people desperately need a brilliant, polished, and effective Commander-in-Chief right now, and Obama's speech shows that he can be that leader.

Opposition within Obama's DNC Speech

His main message is change, but Senator Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention showed everyone that he is patently incapable of such. His speech even manages to create tension within its own bounds. Obama uses old political tactics while preaching to discard them, things like constantly attacking his opponent or promising impossible things to appeal to everyone. His speech even tries to make him into a commander of armies while he says that one of his first priorities is ending a war before its problems have been resolved. This speech has so much tension with its own ideas that it pulls itself inward, imploding into an ineffective farce.

Even while he preaches a new direction for politics, Obama still participates in some of the worst examples of the old. During the speech he condemns his opponent McCain for focusing more on attacking Obama's campaign than actually making a case for his own, right before he launches into a series of vicious attacks against McCain. These attacks are not just counters when he uses phrases like “Senator McCain just doesn't get it.” Obama is a perpetrator of a crime that he has spent his entire campaign railing against. This is a stunning example of hypocrisy, and not one that should be present in a leader of the United States. Because of this, the speech is weakened and ineffectual, as American voters will have a hard time understanding what Obama really stands for, or whether he really stands for anything at all.

The senator is always full of promise for change, but the multitude of empty promises that he spews in this speech are yet another example of the old stale politics that Obama's campaign practices. He promises every concession to everyone, a utopia that cannot realistically be achieved. He simultaneously states that he will lower taxes for the middle class while at the same time giving billions to a universal health care system and promising full benefits to all veterans and schooling for every child. These are mostly good things, but they cannot be put into action along side one another, especially with the shuddering economy that we have today. A speech that promises to take less money and spend more when we are already in a deficit cannot be taken seriously, and is thus ineffective. And beyond opposing itself in that respect, this sort of empty promise is exactly the type of old style politics that Obama denounces for causing our country's current state, and that is yet another way in which the speech defeats itself.

There never was a commander in history who was famous for backing down, but Obama seems to think that he can do just that. He wants the voters to think that he has the experience and the courage to lead not just the nation, but its armies. Yet his only plan to deal with the real, current war is to get out of it. Right after challenging Senator McCain to a debate about his ability to lead the country's defenses, Obama says that he plans to immediately begin troop withdrawal. How can you say that you have the courage to lead a country when you don't even have enough faith in that country's strength to believe that it can finish what it started? Simply pulling out would leave behind chaos in a country that we occupied and would dishearten the whole of America. How will the people if we bring the troops home before they have been able to accomplish anything? How will the families of dead marines feel when the cause they were fighting for is simply abandoned? A speech in which Obama pretends to be a brave and thoughtful leader while promising such an ill-informed mistake should be taken by the American people as a warning against that candidate and his policies.

A hypocritical speech unveils a hypocritical candidate. Senator Obama has become America's darling candidate by promising everything, yet he has no articulated way to do that and maintain the budget. At the same time this speech contains both a promise to command as well as a promise to surrender, and a rant against stagnant politics that takes that exact form. It should be obvious to the American people, as this speech collapses inwards on itself, that a candidate who makes such a mistaken declaration of his policies should not and cannot be the leader of our country.

3 comments:

jordanraabe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jordanraabe said...

ESSAY ONE

Good first essay. What was your viewpoint? I'm guessing Obama supporter. You obviously will be voting for Obama, and seem to fully believe in him.

You're intro paragraph is quick and to the point, but has a lot of passive language in it. I fall into the same thing sometimes, but just have to think about how to avoid using is, be, are, etc. and restructure my sentence accordingly. It has a nicer flow. Also, including information about the when and where of the speech was a good choice.

You broke your argument down well (voice, language, structure). My only complaint is how you phrased your topic sentences with passive language. For example, your second body paragraph's intro:

"Not only is his voice firm, but so are the words that he uses."

I fell that you could improve the flow and make your opening sentences stronger if you got rid of those "to be" verbs and rephrased your topic sentence to something like:

"Obama uses not only a firm voice, but firm language."

Or something like that. Also, if you're starting a new paragraph, I think that warrants you reiterating who "he" is, I could be wrong, but try using "Obama" instead of "he" the first time you mention him in every paragraph.

I feel like you're strongest paragraphs were either the second or fourth body paragraph. The second paragraph did a good job of analyzing the use of negatives that Obama uses to create a clear definition or guideline to a promise. The fifth does a good job analyzing the flow of his speech. It's short, staccato sentences really pack a punch. Extra points for the hammer metaphor, that was great.

For my final criticism, I suggest you scan your essay for awkward phrasing, or words that Orwell would slash out. You had a few phrases in here which could be simplified down. When I came upon them, I had to stop reading and go back to get the meaning of the sentence. For example:

"The first thing that stands out about Obama's speech is HOW STRONG IT SOUNDS."

Those aren't angry caps, I just couldn't figure out the html bold formatting. This could easily become:

"The first thing that stands out about Obama's speech is it's strength."

Or if we want to get rid of the passive:

"The strength of Obama's speech strands out prominently."

Or something like that.

ESSAY TWO

Another good essay. Obviously, the opposite viewpoint from the first. I think about halfway through though, you start to phase into critiquing Obama's views rather than his delivery, which from the perspective essay, is hard to avoid. Your second and third body paragraphs just seemed to focus on how he makes too many promises and is willing to pre-emptively pull our troops from Iraq. Many of the things for the last essay still stand, like passive voice, a proof pass for awkward language, but you did a good job. You had some good language in here by the way.

professorjfox said...

Capitalize more of the Title.

Good TS for the 2 and 3 paragraphs, as well as strong transitions.

Great paragraph divisions – each paragraph very clearly accomplishes a single thing, and each one accomplishes something different.

You say “He can be that leader,” or “he can be a good leader” or some other variation, is repeated a bit too often.

At times your own tone is slightly too loftily optimistic:

“and any leader who can do that with his followers cannot be an unproductive one.”

You know, lots of people have wonderful speechmaking skills but are terrible leaders. I don’t think the one follows from the other. (Find out the name of this fallacy)

2nd essay

Obama uses old political tactics while preaching to discard them, things like constantly attacking his opponent or promising impossible things to appeal to everyone.” Good point.

These attacks are not just counters when he uses phrases like “Senator McCain just doesn't get it.”: Fallacy of Ad Hominem

Because of this, the speech is weakened and ineffectual, as American voters will have a hard time understanding what Obama really stands for, or whether he really stands for anything at all.:
You go too far on the other side in this critique. You’re overstepping your bounds, and thus your rhetoric is weakened. For both papers, you should be qualifying your statements. For instance, probably most American voters will not have noticed what you pointed out, and thus they will not have a hard time understanding what Obama stands for. Be more reasonable in your critique.

shuddering economy Nice phrase.

There never was a commander in history who was famous for backing down,: Beware of Never. I mean, isn’t a Pyrrhic Victory an example of when Victory comes with too great a cost and the military should have backed off?