7. Obama and Clinton’s rhetoric compared
7.3 I or we?
The third and final tendency from my analysis I want to bring to light and discuss in this section is the way the two orators use personal pronouns in their speeches. One of the advantages of a rhetorical analysis that examines several layers of rhetoric is that it gives you several facets or elements, from which to make a comparison between speeches. The reason I have chosen to highlight the use of personal pronouns is that I believe that the way the respective orators’ use the personal pronouns have different and important rhetorical implications that set them apart.
What my analysis found and something I have mentioned before is that both Clinton and Obama use the first part of their speeches to establish the reality that the health care problems affect every single American. The natural implication of this on the word level is that both orators use the personal pronoun we extensively in the early parts of their speeches. By using the personal pronoun we the orators create a common bond with the audience and establishes a sense of unity, a sense of we Americans are all in this together. However, while Both Clinton and Obama use we extensively in the early parts of their speeches
there is an interesting contrast in the way the orators use personal pronouns in the middle and later parts of their speeches. This contrast can best be described by reintroducing a notion I have already discussed in the previous section, namely the concept of the consistent vs. the inconsistent. The reason I reintroduce this notion is that, while Clinton begins her speech using we extensively as can be seen e.g. here;
“Ultimately this is about who we are as a people and what we stand for” (Appendix a, L. 63‐64) she moves away from this and begins using the personal pronoun I instead. Now this tendency, this inconsistency has some interesting implications because it is again as I have discussed in the previous section, a matter of creating two conflicting realities. The problem, as I see it, is that in the early parts of her speech Clinton mobilizes the audience, includes them in the problem in order to persuade them to be part of the solution.
However, when it comes time to actually present the solutions to the health care problems Clinton puts herself almost solely on center stage by using I as can be seen in this quote, which is one of many using I; I will require insurance companies in the Health Choices Menu to let you take your plan with you as you move from job to job or even state to state” (Appendix a, L. 204‐206). This is problematic, in my opinion, because by failing to consistently include the audience, the Americans, in the solution part of her speech; Clinton does not have the opportunity to take advantage of the feeling of unity and motivation to take action instigated by the “we are all in this together” reality she has already established.
Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a specific intention behind the way Clinton uses the personal pronoun I. I believe that by extensively using I and thereby stressing her own ethos Clinton is trying to show herself as a strong leader. This is not an ineffectual reality for a politician to establish, but the way Obama uses the personal pronouns in his speech creates something that is in my opinion more powerful. Obama in my opinion creates what I would describe as a positive movement for change.
Obama as mentioned earlier uses the personal pronoun we in the beginning of the speech to establish that the health care problems affect the all Americans, not rich or poor Americans, nurses or patients, but simply Americans. This is seen for example when Obama early in the speech says; “Amy is right. This is not who we are. We are not a country that rewards hard work and perseverance with bankruptcies and foreclosures. We are not a country that allows major challenges to go unsolved and unaddressed while our people suffer needlessly” (Appendix b, L. 19‐21). Where Obama’s use of the personal pronouns differs in comparison to Clinton, however, is that Obama actually uses we consistently throughout the entire speech.
An example of Obama using we in a later part of his speech illustrates one of the advantages of his approach. Obama says “First, we will reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions” (Appendix b, L 117‐118).Obama could have said I will reduce costs, but as I mentioned in my analysis he uses we instead. There is a very good connection here
between we pay too much and we will reduce costs. In my opinion, Obama can by using we continue to take advantage of the realities he has created, namely that health care is a problem that affects all Americans and everybody is part of the solution, and he can better take advantage of the powerful emotions such as unity and patriotism established by these realities. Obama can do this because, in my opinion, the realities he presents create a desire in the audience for action and a desire to be part of this action. Obama is creating the desire for action in the beginning of his speech and satisfying this desire during the rest of his speech. Obama is satisfying this desire because what he is doing by using we
consistently is making the audience part of his team, part of this movement to improve health care. This, in my opinion, makes the audience feel as though by choosing Obama’s plan, they are actively doing
something positive or in other words it makes the audience feel as though they by choosing Obama’s plan can be an active part of a positive movement for change.
I believe that the feeling of being part of a positive movement is a more powerful and inspiring message than Clinton’s “if they do as I instruct the plan will succeed” message.