Rhetoric in Great Speeches

Rhetoric in Great Speeches

Cultural / Ideological Analysis

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) is credited by objective scholars and historians as having brought the United States out of the Great Depression, and as having guided the United States through the difficult and dangerous period during World War II. FDR was fiercely challenged by members of Congress when he was working to dig the country out of the Great Depression with his "New Deal." Members of Congress attacked FDR's programs as "socialism" -- these attacks -- using "socialism" as a hot-button word to stir up the population -- were quite similar to what the current U.S. president, Barack Obama was accused of as he battled to win legislative approval of his signature healthcare reforms, the Affordable Healthcare Act. Along the way to achieving his goals to get the country on a financially even keel and to defeat Hitler and the Japanese, FDR's leadership was bolstered by his well-crafted speeches to the country.

Thesis

Many historians and scholars have posited that FDR's performance as president during the Great Depression and throughout most of World War II achieved levels of success beyond what any president ever faced before or after. One of the pivotal reasons he was so remarkably effective as president was that his speeches were extraordinarily well written and presented. FDR's speeches were designed to have great influence on the citizenry, and they certainly did. He used the power of his position as president -- embracing ethos in the sense of asserting his absolute credibility -- and he indeed achieved the credibility he demanded. In fact by originating the "fireside chat" -- radio addresses that had a home-town tone but came from a lofty rhetorical authority -- he presented truth, sincerity, and solution-based themes.

FDR's Fireside Chats -- Rhetorical Techniques

"The simultaneous rise in popularity of radio and FDR's political fortune is an interesting historical twist of fate…though he was crippled by polio, few knew that his imposing 6'1" frame was relegated to a wheelchair…[his] distinctive voice and jollity flowed into people's homes…his disability was invisible…" (Yu, 2005, p. 89).

Not all of FDR's speeches were "fireside chats" but the president did know how best to use this newly emerging mass media technology -- radio. FDR used "…simple analogies to help millions of listening Americans understand shifting economic concepts and social philosophies," Lumeng (Jenny) Yu writes in the peer-reviewed journal The History Teacher. His expertise in the component of inclusion was up to this period in history unprecedented. Through his wise use of radio, FDR let listeners know that his values were the same as theirs; he let them know their burdens were understood by their president. No other previous president had these technological tools -- and moreover, because FDR was shrewd and because he had excellent communication skills (along with a staff of bright, alert professionals that understood this medium), his popularity soared.

In his radio addresses, he used "strategically placed pauses," Yu explains, which allowed him to infuse his rhetoric with more emotion (Yu, 2005, p. 92). Citizens would sit in front of the radio in their living rooms and listen to the "…comforting words of their president, encouraging them," Yu continues. In the span of FDR's twelve years in the White House he gave about thirty fireside chats along with many other speeches over the radio. He called listeners his "friends" and emphasized the word "we" often, "…making sure the people knew they were not doomed to solve their problems alone" (Yu, 90).

The president's voice was "…filled with the sagacity of a father," and like a father, Yu continues, it was "…difficult to escape FDR's presence" (90).

Stephen Warley -- a former television news producer -- writes in his book that "Roosevelt understood the power of this new medium to help unite his people into a nation of active citizens" (Warley, 2006). FDR and his speech writers fully grasped the need to use "plan and simple" language, and to craft "anecdotes to help the average American understand complex issues" -- which again showed his talent at inclusion and simplification (Warley). FDR also had a good sense of timing; he usually gave his fireside chats around 10:00 P.M. eastern time because it was "early enough for Easterners getting ready for bed" and "late enough" for those on the West Coast to be arriving home from work (Warley). And moreover, Warley continues, FDR asked his listeners to "tell me your troubles," as though he were a father figure truly expressing that he cared about his children's lives. And there is ample evidence that FDR did indeed care about Americans and their well-being beyond the superficiality that many politicians express through patriotic platitudes and cliches.

FDR's "Day of Infamy" Speech

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory…" (Yu, 92).

This is one of the most famous speeches in American political history. It was not a long speech but there was so much emotion packed into the narrative the world (including Congress) could clearly discern that FDR was in a "take no prisoners" mode. He was angry yet at the same time he was focused on the job that needed to be done to even the score with Japan.

The president knew full well that Americans were not anxious to become involved in another world war. The wounds from World War I were still fresh in the minds of older people and moreover, Americans just didn't see the need to become involved in Europe's problems. But when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the president spend a great deal of time crafting his speech because he needed to persuade the country that war was inevitable and yet the speech needed to show confidence in America's ability to respond and to ultimately win the war against Japan.

So, FDR used what Yu called "precision of language"; that effort helped convey his message without alarming listeners. For example, he changed the word "attacks" (in his first draft) to "attack," so it would sound like just one attack (albeit the Japanese also attacked American territories elsewhere that same day) (Yu, 91).

With reference to the attacks by Japan, FDR made a speech to the U.S. Congress on December 8, and he gave a fireside chat on December 9. His speech to Congress was also carried on radio, and he used his bully pulpit -- along with his power of emphasis and persuasion and his sill at projection to bring his radio audience to the same conclusion that he had reached: while the Japanese were secretly making plans to attack the U.S., they deceived the Americans into thinking that ongoing discussions about peace were serious. In other words, the Japanese are an immoral, ruthless, bloodthirsty rouge nation of power-hungry killers.

His strategy was of course to stir Americans' rage against Japan, and he succeeded expertly. "The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific" (Safire, 1997, p. 142). He went on to list the other regions where Americans had great interest (Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Midway Island) and he implied that American would make a powerful response to these attacks by saying: "…We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us" (Safire, 142). That actually sounded like the U.S. was prepared to wipe Japan from the map in return for the vicious sudden attacks.

In his prepared speech to Congress, FDR made it clear it was Congress's responsibility to declare war, not his. "…We will gain the inevitable triumph," he said near the end of his speech on December 8, 1941. "So help us God," he added, invoking the thought that God was on the side of America against these cold-blooded militaristic madmen from Japan. Lastly, he asked that "…Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire" (Safire, 143).

FDR's Fireside Chat on the Attacks by the Japanese

In his fireside chat on December 9, 1941, FDR's intelligently prepared rhetorical techniques were brilliantly employed to paint a picture of the Japanese (and Germans) as more than just aggressors and warmongers. They were depicted as treacherous gangsters, criminals, immoral and despicable inhuman rascals -- out to control the world and lock free people into the chains of fascism. .

"Powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race," he stated in the second paragraph of his speech (UCSB.edu). This rhetoric shows that FDR understood the best use of simplification -- he artfully reduced the actions of the Japanese and Germans to the lowest common denominator: they are nothing but thugs and common street criminals. This surely got the attention of every man, woman, and child that was old enough to be conversant with the English language. That line was preceded by one of the most poignant and powerful sentences that any president uttered at any time in the twentieth century: "The sudden criminal attacks perpetrated by the Japanese in the Pacific provide the climax of a decade of international immorality" (UCSB.edu).

His fireside chat pointed out clearly that the United States wasn't alone in its fight against the treachery of Japan and Germany. He made it a universal theme when he told Americans listening on the radio, "Together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom and in common decency, without fear of assault" (UCSB.edu). Over and over again FDR insisted that the United States would conquer these criminals and make them pay. In order to make the dramatic point that all Americans must stand together -- implying that if Americans don't stand together it will bring on a disaster for freedom -- FDR issued a stinging assertion:

"…No honest person, today or a thousand years hence, will be able to suppress a sense of indignation and horror at the treachery committed by the military dictators of Japan, under the very shadow of the flag of peace borne by their special envoys in our midst" (UCSB.edu). In other words, we are all in this together, and we in it for the long run. This strategy embraces the concept of legitimization: the clear inference is that anyone who doesn't agree with FDR's rhetoric is dishonest. Hence, listeners had no choice, if they are honest, to accept the anger that the president was feeling and no doubt he believed that Americans would share his outrage.

A few minutes into his fireside chat, FDR rattled off the invasions into sovereign territories that Japan and Hitler had perpetrated, and after each fact he paused and said, "…without warning." For example, he noted that "In 1940, Hitler invaded Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg -- without warning" (UCSB.edu). And of course Japan attacked America -- "without warning."

This strategy showed the president's familiarity with the rhetorical approach known as unification. To wit, all those attacks were similar because they came without warning. Not that these kinds of outrageously aggressive actors would ever offer their intended targets and victims warning, but FDR didn't need to follow strategic military logic in this instance; he just needed to show his leadership through his verbal narrative, and he did so in brilliant fashion.

Going through a lengthy list of the aggression by Hitler and Japan, and ending each with the same phase, certainly had a powerful impact on listeners back home huddled around their radios looking for hope and leadership. Not only are these culprits unspeakably dangerous and vicious, but the suggestion was clearly planted that the same thing could happen on U.S. soil, and it would happen "…without warning." That was the purpose of his redundancy. Indeed the United States had not been attacked on its shores but FDR was making clear this could happen. Given the unexpected and devastating Pearl Harbor assault, the nation needed to be shown that their president was wary of the enemies. He was using the tactic of rhetorical apprehension to put the fear of God into the audience, and if they weren't already aware of the imminent danger in this new violent world, they would soon be aware thanks to FDR's use of apprehension (fear-appeal).

Listeners may have felt they were not only being informed, but actually being scolded by the teacher. That is because FDR made a strong case against spreading rumors about the war effort or the activities of the enemies. "Most urgently I urge my countrymen to reject all rumors. These ugly little hints of complete disaster fly thick and fast in wartime," he asserted, and he blamed them on "enemy sources" (UCSB.edu, p. 2).

What FDR said to the media and to citizens next came across as that fatherly advice that is more like a warning than a simple appraisal of the situation.

"To all newspapers and radio stations -- all those who reach the eyes and ears of the American people -- I say this: You have a most grave responsibility to the Nation now and for the duration of this war" (UCSB.edu, p. 2). If the media feels it is not getting enough information from the government as to the progress of the war, "…you have every right to say so," the president explained. "But -- in the absence of all the facts, as revealed by official sources -- you have no right in the ethics of patriotism to deal out unconfirmed reports in such a way as to make people believe they are gospel truth" (UCSB.edu, p. 2). After scolding and warning the newspapers and radio stations, FDR turned his rhetoric to citizens listening on the radio.

"Every citizen, in every walk of life, shares this same responsibility. The lives of our soldiers and sailors -- the whole future of this nation -- depend upon the manner in which each and every one of us fulfills his obligation to our country" (UCSB.edu, p. 2). About half way through his fireside chat, FDR took credit for the country's recent buildup of military materials. He told listeners that following the seizure of France by Hitler, 18 months earlier, and "…knowing that the attack might reach us in all too short a time," he had ordered an increase "…in our industrial strength and our capacity to meet the demands of modern warfare" (UCSB.edu, p. 2). Again this is a strategy that embraces legitimization because FDR has been readying the country for war and the audience has no choice but to accept his seriousness about these hostilities; he is basically demanding that his audience accept the danger and accept his moves in response to the danger.

He noted that the U.S. has been sending war materials to "Nations of the world still able to resist Axis aggression" and that policy was based on the "fundamental truth" that defending countries (like England, though FDR did not mention it by name) that are resisting Hitler or Japan was in a real sense preparing for "…the defense of our own country" (UCSB.edu, p. 2).

America must be prepared for a "long" and a "hard" war, because the "powerful bandits" are "crafty," he asserted. Here he uses "bandits" to reduce Hitler and Japan to cheap cowboys holding up stage coaches and trains in the old west. He is simplifying the argument again by painting a picture for his listeners of a group of criminals no better than bandits covering their faces with bandanas because they wish to be hidden from the good people.

This speech featured a very effective use of language because in one paragraph he is warning the media to avoid promoting rumors and in the next he is assuring the American people that plenty of tanks and planes are being built to protect the country from any attempt to attack us on the mainland. Then he reminds Americans what kind of criminals the country is facing; they are gangsters, bandits, treacherous fascists determined to rule the world. He is by way of legitimizing the power of the executive office of the United States, which has its most vital task to protect the citizens therein.

Toward the end of his fireside chat, FDR uses the time-tested strategy that many speech writers have used -- juxtaposition. He asserts that it is not a "sacrifice" for a person to be in the army or navy. "Rather, it is a privilege," he states (UCSB.edu, p. 3). It is not a "sacrifice" for the person earning a wage, or the farmer, or shopkeeper, or the doctor or trainman "…to pay more taxes, to buy more bonds, to forego extra profits, to work longer or harder at the task for which he is best fitted. Rather it is a privilege" (UCSB.edu, p. 3). As President John Kennedy would offer later in his famous line, "The question is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," FDR was using the strategy of mythos.

Mythos in this instance was the president's way of saying that the social character of the nation was based on patriotism, pride, and loyalty to democratic principles. "It is a privilege," he was saying, to stand up to tyranny and that will be proof that Americans stand together and fight together when they are threatened, and indeed after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the other American installations, FDR could make the claim with utmost legitimacy that this moment in history was pivotal to the future survival of America.

Shortly after that theme, FDR seeks once again to define the enemy as nothing more than cheap street urchins and gangbangers (like Al Capone, perhaps, or a slimy drug pusher with membership in a gang who carries a Saturday night special and is addicted to methamphetamine) who happen to have enormous military power. "There is no such thing as security for any Nation," he explained, in a world "…ruled by the principles of gangsterism" (UCSB.edu, p. 3). But notwithstanding the stealth that these gangsters employ, or their sinister intentions, or their military might, FDR asserted that Americans should never "…doubt…our ability to administer proper punishment to the perpetrators of these crimes" (UCSB.edu, p. 3). That punishment must be final and severe, FDR suggested that night during his fireside chat with a nervous nation. And even though there will be "dark days" to come, Americans understand that "…the vast majority of the members of the human race are on our side… [and] all of them are praying for us. For in representing our cause, we represent theirs as well -- our hope and their hope for liberty under God" (UCSB.edu, p. 3).

Once again FDR brings God into the discussion, clearly linking the Almighty with America's passion to make the Japanese pay for their dastardly deeds. This was another of his mythos moments. He made statements and backed them up with evidence ("…a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism" is not acceptable) but the punishment for the perpetrators of these crimes will be "proper" and administered by those patriotic Americans who buy bonds, who ration certain supplies, and who step forward to serve in the noble cause he has outlined.

FDR's Quarantine Address in Chicago, October 5, 1937

In 1937 it was clear that terrible events were occurring in Europe and Asia, but the majority of Americans preferred a policy of isolation from those calamities. The movie theaters were showing newsreels of Japanese bombs falling on "…helpless Chinese civilians" and the fascists (led by Mussolini) were defeating the Spanish, and while FDR was fully aware of the dangers overseas, he was acutely aware of the mood of Americans. Still, in October, 1937 FDR gave a speech in Chicago in order to "…test the domestic political waters for support for a stronger national policy against unchecked aggression," according to the book Great Speeches.

What FDR accomplished by making this speech -- warning the nation, in effect, that steps may eventually need to be taken to respond to the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians -- was not an immediate acceptance of the dangers by the populace. But it opened the door for FDR to launch a policy of isolating the nations that were investing their energy and manpower in a destructive campaign of killing and conquering territory.

Certainly the strategy of ethos played a role in this presentation. FDR wasn't asking the nation to be willing to go to war, but he was setting the table as the nation's most credibly spokesman for national safety and direction. He was believable and reliable and there were no wild warnings in his rhetoric -- such as the nation saw years later when George W. Bush asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world. Citizens nearly always accept that their president has insider information and that his administration's intelligence gathering is forthright and dependable. Hence, by using a logos approach to his theme he got the nation's attention.

"…Vast numbers of women and children… are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air," he said; "Innocent peoples, innocent nations are being cruelly sacrificed to a greed for power and supremacy which is devoid of all sense of justice and humane consideration" (Great Speeches, 1999, p. 64). In those two sentences FDR was using overkill rhetoric; he needed to emphasize that hideously immoral acts were being perpetrated and hoped through his use of concepts like murder, bombs, ruthless, cruelty, sacrifice, greed, supremacy that were very persuasive. After pointing to the atrocious acts that were being carried out, FDR used the approach known as apprehension, using fear as an appeal for his audience (which was in Chicago but the whole country was privy to his assertions) to come to a level of understanding.

The threats to the United States were real, he emphasized. And moreover, "…let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked and that it will continue tranquilly and peacefully to carry on the ethics and the arts of civilization" (Great Speeches, p.65). His use of the concept of apprehension went to even more dramatic levels when he quoted "…a recent author" whose rhetoric could easily be seen as inflammatory and beyond the genre of good taste.