The Presidents Words for America: Exposing Rhetorical Techniques used in State of the Union Addresses Introduction Once

a year, the citizens of the United States sit down in front of the television to watch the Presidents State of the Union Address. It is at this time when they learn about the current state of their nation, as well as the Presidents ideals and plans to keep the nation moving forward. Over the years, Americans have watched countless State of the Union Addresses, and have been informed and persuaded by the President to support his ideas, with almost no answer as to why they were persuaded. In other words, many have paid attention to the content in the State of the Union Addresses, but not the way in which information was rhetorically delivered to them. As a result, a great State of the Union Address might sway innocent American people into supporting plans and initiatives that they might have not supported in the first place (if they had been given objective information). Framing has been forever used as a persuasive technique in structuring presidential rhetoric (Nelson, Druckmen, Cohen). Framing can be loosely defined as the dramatic enhancement of a fact, ideal or concept through the use of certain choice words and phrases. Rhetoric uses framing to shed objective information in a non-objective light, turning facts into loaded claims. Framing affects peoples reactions to issues layered in rhetoric; however, it has been found that the average citizen may not be as susceptible to framing effects as political elites assume (Druckmen). Presidents also have the ability to connect to their audiences in their State of the Union Addresses by using certain choice words. Audience connection in presidential rhetoric has been studied in terms of measureable word usage, and this data illustrates five trends in presidential

rhetoric, three rhetorical eras of the presidency, and a gauge of a presidents charisma and greatness (Lim, Teten, Emrich et. al). By using choice words, presidents not only connect with the audience, but frame their political issues in rhetoric. Research has also presented ideas about framing and results from word count studies, but has not explained the specific rhetorical techniques that president use in their State of the Union Addresses. In order to examine the rhetorical tactics and techniques used in State of the Union Addresses to expose the ways which rhetoric is delivered, it was important to first examine the usage and trends of presidential rhetoric, and must understand the concepts of framing and audience connection through words. Framing In State of the Union Addresses, presidents use framing to transform objective information and issues into persuasive concepts to the American people to absorb and intake (Nelson, Druckmen, Cohen). For example, rhetors will frame statistics to their personal need, perhaps saying that 7% of people are unemployed, and not acknowledging the other 93% of people have steady jobs. Framing is responsible for the persuasiveness of rhetoric, and dictates how facts are used, how information is grouped into concepts, etc. Although rhetors use framing for the same reason, its definition is not universal, as framing can be used in several different ways. For example, Thomas E. Nelson explains how rhetors frame issues by articulating the criteria by which decisions should be made (582). James Druckmen contests this definition, explaining that there are multiple definitions of the term framing, such as the the way a story is written or produced, and the decision-makers conception of the acts, outcomes, and contingencies associated with a particular choice (226-27). Druckmen also states that the rigorous study and use of framing by elites undermines levels of citizen competence (235). He questions the effectiveness of framing, and found that framing effects might occur less often

than assumed (244). Jeffrey Cohen agrees with Druckmen, explaining that framing does not even need to be used in order to push a political agenda, as the simple mention of an issue is enough for the audience to remember its importance. Nelson, Druckmen, and Cohen all recognize that framing exists and is used as a form of elite manipulation. However, they disagree on framings effectiveness and the extent for its use in presidential rhetoric. Connection through words Framing is only one technique that is used in presidential rhetoric. Since the first State of the Union Address was given, the president has easily established a connection with the American people by using certain choice words in his speech (Emrich et. al, Lim, Teten). According to Emrich et. al, image-based words have more impact on an audience than conceptbased words; for example, if Martin Luther King, Jr. had proclaimed, I have an idea, his I have a dream speech would have had the same meaning, but would it have had the same impact (529)? They studied this claim by analyzing the rhetoric used in speeches in terms of word usage, counting the number of image-based words used in presidential rhetoric to measure presidents charisma and greatness. Emrich et. al found that the use of image-based words made presidents seem more charismatic to their audiences. Ryan L. Teten also agrees that word usage impacts audience connection, but disagrees with the research methods of Emrich et. al. He instead compares the word count and pronoun usage in State of the Union Addresses across time, and by doing so, concluds that these speeches have rhetorically defined the founding, traditional, and modern presidencies (335-43). By studying the word usage of pronouns, or as Teten calls them, public indicators, he was able to trace the increasing level of identification with the audience (342). Elvin T. Lim agreed with Teten, but decided to reach beyond the idea of the three rhetorical presidencies. Using Tetens word-searching methods, Lim found that word

choice in State of the Union Addresses has evolved to better connect the president to the American people, making these speeches increasingly anti-intellectual, abstract, assertive, democratic, and conservational; especially in the last three decades. Emrich et. al, Teten, and Lim all agree that word choice was the key to audience connection for speeches past and present. However, in their methods, they only paid attention to the measures of key words, such as the quantity of pronouns and image-based words that were used; none of them considered to analyze the context in which these words were used. More importantly, they did not examine how these words were twisted in rhetorical techniques in State of the Union Addresses. While these studies yield great results, they do not look at how the use of framing and choice words contributes to the exigence of presidential rhetoric. Researchers examined framing and studied its effects on the average person, but they did not consider specific instances when and how a President might use framing in a State of the Union Address. Additionally, researchers showed how the use of certain words and the mention of certain issues connect the president to his nation, but did not look at these words in the context of rhetorical strategy. Therefore, I conducted a study in which I used textual analysis to examine rhetorical techniques used in presidential rhetoric, and set out to find how presidents use rhetoric in their State of the Union Addresses to persuade the American people. Methodology Methods In order to discover rhetorical strategies that Presidents used their State of the Union Addresses, I used textual analysis to study one State of the Union Address from each of the last four presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush.

To do this, I selected one State of the Union Address from each presidency at random, choosing Barack Obamas 2009 address, George W. Bushs 2005 address, Bill Clintons 1993 address, and George H.W. Bushs 1990 address. I found the full texts of these State of the Union Addresses, and then copied them into a Microsoft Word 2007 word document. Then, using the comments review feature on the same program, I made comments in the margins of each address, noting patterns in rhetoric, previously known rhetorical strategies, idealistic/realistic wording of certain issues, or key facts that had been purposely left out. I made an average of 130 comments for each State of the Union Address. After I had completed this step, I used textual analysis to analyze the micro and macro rhetorical strategies that presidents use in their State of the Union Addresses. To analyze the macro features of these speeches, I studied the overall structure of each State of the Union Address. I found that each president followed a specific structure for their speeches. The macro structure of these speeches is displayed in the chart below. Macro Structure of State of the Union Addresses 1. Thank Congress, Speaker, American people 2. Build-up 3. Present issues and plans via AIRC 4. Conclusion formed with idealistic statements and/or calls to action. Chart A Marco Structure of State the Union Addresses

The comments that I had previously made helped me to analyze the micro features of presidential rhetoric, highlighting two important characteristics of State of the Union Addresses.

First, the comments helped me realize that these speeches are made up of a series of idealistic and realistic statements. Idealistic statements are statements that are laced in rhetoric, and they come in the form of analysis, explanation, or the mention of cause and effect. For example, in regards to the reasons for our fallen economy, Barack Obama stated The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems dont lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. This statement is considered to be an idealistic statement because it could easily be reworded into a less attractive statement, one that does not use such powerful and dramatic language. Realistic statements come in the form of feasible and comprehensible goals that are sometimes legitimized with deadlines, monetary figures or simplified (not rhetorized) explanations of long, arduous processes. For example, when talking about the governments budget, Bill Clinton stated Our budget will, by 1997, cut 140 billion dollars from the deficitwe are making more than 150 difficult, painful reductions which will cut federal spending by $246 billion dollars. This statement presents the nation with a feasible goal and real monetary figures. While these figures were obviously put together for a rhetorical effect, the fact that Clinton simply stated these figures makes this statement a realistic statement. After further examining my comments, I noticed a pattern in the micro structure regarding how issues were addressed in State of the Union Addresses. This pattern consisted of

the president first addressing an issue, making idealistic and realistic statements about the issue, and then using a call to action to close the discussion on that issue. To better view this pattern, I labeled each speech with the following code: A for addressing the issue, I for idealistic statements, R for realistic statements, and C for calls to action. The pattern can be seen in the chart below.

Address the issue Idealistic statement Realistic statement

Idealistic

Statements about the issue

Realistic

Ask Congress

Call to action

Ask the American people

To solve the issue

To pass legislation

To stand with the president

To take action at home

Chart B AIRC Pattern

Areas for Improvement I would like to think that my methods were sound, but as with all research, there were many flaws that could have been improved. These flaws might have affected the legitimacy of my results, therefore, my results should not be considered as one hundred percent conclusive.

The first issue is my political affiliation. I am a strong Democrat. I am constantly surrounded by peers that have my same political ideology; I think that the Democratic Party is moving our country forward, and that the GOP is holding us back; MSNBC is the only news station that I will watch, etc. The list of how Democratic I am could go on and on. Most importantly though, I know why I am a Democrat. I am very informed on all political issues, I know what stances the Democrats take, and why I have personally adopted those stances. As a result, I also know what stances make a Republican a Republican. Therefore, while analyzing the State of the Union Addresses, I tried to be objective as possible, thinking like a Democrat while reading a Republican speech, and thinking like a Republican while reading a Democrats speech. This way, I was able to recognize the rhetorical tricks used by both parties, as well keep my political affiliation out of my research. While I am one of the biggest Democrats youll ever meet, I am an even bigger advocate on being politically informed, no matter what political party you affiliate with. I think that it is extremely important for voters to have their own opinions the issues, instead of riding on the bandwagon with their party. In many cases, rhetoric frames political issues in such a way that bury the real facts and causes that these issues are formed from. Both political parties twist the way we look at issues and use rhetoric to their advantage. Therefore, I made sure that my objective in analyzing rhetoric was to consider how the presidents use rhetoric to explain their most important issues, so that after reading this article, a citizen could listen to a State of the Union Address and potentially recognize a pattern that would signal them that the President is about to frame their thoughts with rhetoric. Another issue confronts the sample I used in this study. I picked the State of Union Addresses from each president at random because I wanted a larger variety of rhetorical

situations in my sample, but in the process, situational factors could have negatively impacted my results. For example, the sample loses uniformity in the fact that these State of the Union Addresses were not made at the same point in time in each presidents term (for example, a presidents first State of the Union Address). Also, I recognize that one speech representing each of the past four presidents is not large enough of a sample to categorize presidential rhetorical strategies as a whole. Even though these flaws could have affected my results, these were my reasons for choosing speeches from the past four presidents. In this sample, there are two Republican and two Democratic presidents. Additionally, each president in the sample had been in power in the last thirty years, therefore, making this study of presidential rhetoric as relevant as possible. Research has also shown that in the past three decades, presidential rhetoric has become more anti-intellectual, abstract, assertive, democratic, and conservational (Lim). While these flaws might have impacted my research, I believe that each flaw contained a silver lining that helped me to research rhetorical strategies most effectively. For example, if I did not have such strong political party affiliations, I would have not been able to recognize when rhetoric was used to frame political issues, and my results would have turned out to be completely unreliable and uninformed. Additionally, if I had not chosen my sample in the way that I did, I would not had a balance of situational factors that were extremely important in influencing the rhetoric used in these State of the Union Addresses. Therefore, I believe that my research methods were concrete and effective for the purpose of my study. Results My results provided patterns that these presidents used to lace their issues in rhetoric. Analyzing the macro structure of these speeches helped me to determine four moves that

presidents consistently make in their State of the Union Addresses, demonstrated by Chart A above. First, the president will thank Congress, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the American people. From there, he will proceed into the build-up of his speech. The build-up consists of a combination of idealistic statements and realistic statements that form a short introduction that sets the tone and the presidents exigence for the speech. After delivering the build-up, the president will begin telling Congress and the American people his plans and initiatives for the upcoming year. Following the delivery of his plans, the president will conclude his State of the Union Address using either idealistic statements or repeated calls to action, or both. By analyzing the micro features of these State of the Union Addresses, I was able to find a pattern regarding the way that presidents deliver their plans to the nation. This pattern is called the AIRC pattern, where a president will address an issue, deliver idealistic and/or realistic statements about the issue, and then give a call to action. This pattern is further demonstrated in Chart B above. All of the presidents in the sample were found to have followed this pattern when mentioning issues in their State of the Union Addresses. First, the president will address the issue by mentioning it in the form of realistic or idealistic statements. The president addresses the issue to transition from one idea to the next, and in this way, brings peoples attention to the issue. For example, when addressing the issue of crime, Bill Clinton stated: We want to protect our families against violent crime which terrorizes our people and tears apart our communities.

This is the first mention of crime in Clintons State of the Union Address. This is an idealistic statement, as certain choice words such as violent and terrorizes make this statement a bit dramatic and ambiguous. After the president addresses the issue, he delivers idealistic and realistic statements regarding the issue. Idealistic statements about the issue usually come right after the president addresses it, but this is not always the case. Realistic statements soon follow. The president will usually use a balance of these two kinds of statements to make each realistic statement legitimize an idealistic statement, and vice versa. Continuing the previous example on crime, Clinton went on to say We must pass a tough crime bill. [R] We need to put 100,000 more policemen on the street, provide boot camps for first-time non-violent offenders, and put hardened criminals behind bars. [R] We have a duty to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. [I] This combination of realistic and idealistic statements gives the American people real figures and a comprehensible plan, and then enforces those numbers with the idealistic statement about how handling crime is our responsibility. After using a combination of idealistic and realistic statements about the issue, the President will give Congress and the American people a call to action, where he asks Congress to pass a certain piece of legislation or come up with a plan to solve the issue, or asks the American people to stand with him or take action at home. After conveying a couple idealistic and realistic statements about crime, Clinton simply called Congress to action by stating: If you pass the Brady Bill, Ill sign it. Clinton obviously thought of crime as common sense kind of issue, and his call to action reflects this attitude.

If the president does not use a call to action to conclude discussion on the issue, he will further legitimize his call to action with an additional idealistic statement, or he will simply address the next issue, and the pattern will repeat. Discussion My results show that the way in which the president uses and follows the AIRC pattern determines the effectiveness of their rhetoric. Presidents turn these patterns into techniques that are unique to each issue and rhetorical situation. Clinton vs. Bush on Social Security Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton discussed the issue of Social Security in their State of the Union Addresses. Bush favored the privatization of Social Security, while Clinton favored methods that would provide more sustainability for the current Social Security system. After coding each speech, the rhetorical pattern that each president used was presented as follows: Clinton: AIR2ICI2C Bush: AI2R2IRI2CI2R5IR5C Notice how the first four segments of each pattern (boldfaced) are identical: both presidents addressed the issue, used an idealistic statement, a realistic statement, and an idealistic statement once again to describe the issue of social security. After that point, the similarities between the two speeches diminish. Clinton goes on to give a call to action to the American people, asking them to continue their support of the current Social Security system; explaining through idealized statements that if America doesnt invest in Social Security, it will fail (fear appeal); and then gives a final call to action for Congress to be strong and keep the current Social Security System. Clintons deliverance on Social Security was

simple and direct because he was not looking to change the system; he was just asking people to invest in the current one. Even so, Clintons use of the AIRC pattern was weak, considering that realistic statements were reinforced by idealistic statements only once in the entire section. Also, the way in which Clinton used an idealistic statement as a fear appeal between two calls to action at the end of his rhetoric negatively reinforced the fear of changing the Social Security system, scaring the American people into keeping the current Social Security system. Bush, however, had a different plan for the Social Security system, and therefore, followed an entirely different pattern. He continues to explain the faults of the current Social Security system through the use an idealistic statement that makes the point that our world has changed, and Social Security should as well. He then uses a realistic statement in which he states the possible (and scary) reality that the system will soon run bankrupt (fear appeal). After this, Bush gives a call to action to Congress, stating that You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all. Bush continues to explain with a couple of idealistic statements that all ideas regarding Social Security reform are on the table. After this, using a series of realistic statements, Bush sets the ground rules for what Social Security reform should look like. He then legitimizes those realistic statements with an idealistic statement, saying that wehave the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. Immediately after, Bush proposes the ideal of the use of voluntary personal retirement accounts through the use of a realistic statement. Using another series of realistic statements, Bush explains how retirement accounts work in a simplified and comprehensible manner. He makes the idea seem safe, reliable, and most importantly, better than the current Social Security system. It was in this way that Bushs rhetoric accomplished its goalto convince people that the privatization of the Social Security

system is the best option available. The way in which Bush used idealistic statements to follow series of realistic statements effectively reinforced those realistic statements because of the way he used negative and positive reinforcements through idealistic statements. The first few idealistic statements that he uses are based on fear appeal, while the last few idealistic statements come across as positive and encouraging, which was more effectively persuasive than Clintons use of fear appeal because Bush was not trying to scare anyone into possibly adopting a new Social Security system. Bushs used of the AIRC pattern clearly demonstrates his will to persuade the American people to follow a new direction in Social Security. In this case, Clinton did not use the AIRC pattern as effectively as Bush did. If Clinton had used more realistic statements in his speech and had positively enforced his plans within the American people, his rhetoric would have been more persuasive and effective. Obama on Jobs When Barack Obama gave his State of the Union Address in 2009, the issue that Americans were most worried about was jobs. Many Americans had been unemployed for years, and they wanted to know what the President would do to help them find work. The code on Obamas rhetoric on jobs is presented as follows: AIR4 Obama addressed the issue on jobs at the very beginning of his agenda, which emphasized the issues priority. He then explained through the use of an idealistic statement that his reasoning for the immediate passing of the American Recovery and Investment Act (ARRA), stating that failure to act would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. Following this, through the use of four realistic statements, he tells how the ARRA will create or save 3.5 million jobs, that 95% of the working households in American will receive a tax cut, that college

students will receive a $2,500 tax cut for college, etc. His explanation of the benefits of the ARRA is very straightforward; Obama lays out the facts and does nothing else. After this, Obama chose not to use a call to action, but to move on to address the issue of bureaucracy oversight reform. The reason for this is simple: Obama used the AIRC pattern to simply inform the people of passed legislation, not convince them to support it. At that point, the economy was in such a bad state that working families in America desperately needed the ARRA, and all that the President needed to do was to comfort them with the benefits that they would soon be receiving from this legislation. This observation shows that while presidential rhetoric does not always seek to persuade the American people, it still follows the AIRC pattern to some degree. Conclusion I have concluded that presidents use the AIRC patterns to address plans, issues and goals in their State of the Union Addresses, and that they use this pattern in different ways to tailor their rhetoric to specific and unique rhetorical situations. More research could definitely be introduced from these ideas. While my results suggest a comprehensible pattern in which presidents propose ideas in their State of the Union Addresses, the pattern had only been applied to the last four presidents. Perhaps, the AIRC pattern could be further examined and tested to see if it fits into all State of the Union Addresses, or if the pattern has possibly evolved over time. Exposing the rhetorical techniques used in State of the Union Addresses is important because of the real impact that these speeches make on the American public. This speech contains the state of our economy, our stance on foreign relations, and other issues that affect our daily lives. Each of these issues has a story behind them: how they came to be, why they are prevalent today, and who supports the issue and why. Regardless of this real information, presidential rhetoric twists this information into appeals that ultimately persuade the American

public, no matter politically competent the average citizen might be. I hope that after reading this article, average citizens are more aware of the rhetorical strategies that are being presented to them, and not fall victim to the presidents rhetorical tricks. Most importantly, I sincerely hope that increased awareness of presidential rhetorical techniques gives citizens the ability form their own opinions on the issues, as well as the opportunity to better exercise their right to vote.

Works Cited Cohen, Jeffrey E. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda. American Journal of Political Science 39.1 (1995): 87-107. JSTOR. Web. 2 Jun 2011. Druckman, James N. The Implications of Framing for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23.3(2001): 225-56. JSTOR. Web. 6 Jun 2011. Emrich, Cynthia G., Holly H. Brower, Jack M. Feldman, Howard Garland. Images in Words: Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly 46.3 (2001):527-557. JSTOR. Web. 1 Jun 2011. Lim, Elvin T. Five Trends in Presidential Rhetoric: An Analysis of Rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Presidential Studies Quarterly 32.2 (2004): 328-66. JSTOR. Web. 1 Jun 2011. Nelson, Thomas E. Policy Goals, Public Rhetoric, and Political Attitudes. The Journal of Politics 66.2 (2004): 581-605. JSTOR. Web. 26 May 2011. Teten, Ryan L. Evolution of the Modern Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address. Presidential Studies Quarterly 33.2 (2003): 333-46. JSTOR. Web. 6 Jun 2011.