writing

Option 2: Comparing Political Rhetoric According to the Department of Communication at the University of Texas, Arlington, “Political persuasion is hard to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see bits and pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news. It is not complete; it is not sequential; it has been edited by others and we see it later.” For the second option, you’ll choose a contemporary issue that’s central to the current presidential campaign (e.g., gun rights; immigration policy; health care costs and accessibility; corporate malfeasance; etc.) and choose two relatively short statements regarding that issue made by two different candidates. You can examine the rhetoric of two candidates from the same political party or two candidates from different parties; their statements should be in the form of the brief excerpts we come to identify with the candidates and that get circulated by news outlets and on social media. They can come from written statements; speeches given on the campaign trail or addressing an organization of some kind; interviews; social media posts (or even tweets or a series of tweets) by the candidate or the campaign organization; or other sources of information from the candidates. More obviously, perhaps, than in academic writing, political rhetoric is built on and appeals to complex, competing values among voters. Keep your eyes open as you scroll through your social media feeds, watch late-night television programs, and listen to or watch news programming. Distinguish between statements that are made by the candidates or their campaigns and the many ways those statements can get picked up and redistributed by other sources and outlets (e.g., memes, satirical online media like the Youtube channel Bad Lip Reading, and so on)—you’re looking for official statements by the candidates or statements sanctioned by their campaigns. After selecting your texts, you’ll analyze them from the five perspectives listed above to understand better their rhetorical dimensions, generating several pages of notes that will help you to frame a more specific research question. This option might also require you to do some background research on the issue to contextualize the statements—to understand the exigence that prompted them, for instance, or the leanings of the audience being addressed. Some possible refined research questions might include • How and why do different candidates—that is, different rhetors—try to establish their ethos in the ways they do? What larger values are reflected in the way they construct their ethos? How might that ethos appeal to different constituents? • How do particular instances of political rhetoric invoke different audiences—what “role” is being “set out for them by the writer” (as Andrea Lunsford puts it), and why would an audience be prepared to accept that role? More effective projects will pay attention to and discuss • The specific rhetorical strategies of two specific passages of rhetorical discourse. Remember: you’re not analyzing a candidate’s every statement on an issue. You should be able to quote and describe the discourse or text you’re analyzing (for instance, a page on the candidate’s website; a specific clip of the candidate speaking before a crowd; etc.). Neither are you editorializing, offering your own point of view on the issue. This is a work of analysis, not persuasion. Your job is not to take a stand of your own on the issue, but to zero in on some very specific chunks of discourse from the candidates and analyze them closely. • The context in which the discourse would be encountered. Be clear about when, where, and how these statements were made. Is this a sound bite from a debate? A quotation from a newspaper article? What does that larger context suggest about the exigence? What is the difference between a comment a candidate made in response to a question in a debate, and an official statement that appears on the candidate’s website? How much control does the candidate have of the discourse, under the circumstances? • The genre. Is this a video clip of the candidate speaking at a town hall meeting? How is that rhetorical situation different from a written discourse that appears over an inspiring photo of the candidate on the campaign website? How does genre affect the exigence of the discourse? • The underlying values that inform the discourse. Recognizing to whom the candidate is appealing, and how, often involves unpacking the multiple exigencies of the discourse. A candidate who defends gun rights and the second amendment is certainly appealing to voters’ fear of crime or desire to protect their families, but usually there is an additional appeal to ideas about freedom and constitutional rights—that is, to a particular vision of America and what it means to be American. Often when a candidate’s discourse is unappealing to us, it’s because their underlying values are different from ours.