While the Clinton campaign has made much of Obama's felicitous rhetorical style, she has her own way with words. As this Washington Post article describes, Clinton fills her speeches with real-world examples to help her to make her arguments. Aristotle said that the most persuasive speeches would argue by enthymeme (a "rhetorical syllogism" that can be understood as what the audience already understands/agrees with) and by example. My question is therefore, if Hillary is so good at Aristotelian logos, then why isn't she known for her rhetorical capabilities? Is it because she explicitly and repeatedly rejects rhetoric?
I wonder if rhetorical scholars might descibe the difference between Clinton and Obama's rhetorical style as the difference between Aristotle and Gorgias (at least from Clinton's framing). How has Obama attempted to frame the differences between he and Clinton? Could we say that he positions himself as Demonsthenes? If so, does Demonsthenes trump Aristotle? Or, anyone else have a more apt comparison?
1 comments:
I agree with you. I always got the impression that rhetors, like JFK and Reagan, enjoyed demonstrating their rhetorical eloquence--not in a smug way, but in a self-deprecating, wink-and-a-nod manner. Reagan, in particular, used to get such joy when he expressed an idea in a way he knew resonated with the audience.
Clinton, on the other hand, with her constant "rhetoric doesn't mean anything" seems bitter about actually using rhetoric to make her case. She is actually cutting herself off from a means to enhance hers image; instead, she's more interested in de-legitimizing Obama's rhetorical acumen.
Post a Comment