Rhetorical face off - who is more effective?

I reviewed two political campaign advertisements. I picked one video from each presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. For the first analysis assignment we completed a few weeks ago I chose a Romney ad so I felt a switch to the other candidate would make for an interesting topic. But once I began viewing different videos I decided I would have more fun comparing tactics rather than just focus on one party.

The advertisement in favor of Barack Obama came out on September 26^th and is called “To Us.” The video is roughly thirty seconds long and discusses Romney’s past as a business executive at Bain Capital, an investment company he cofounded. It states how his business tactics negatively affected American workers and warns that he will do the same if elected to the Oval Office. The speaker in the video also describes parts of Romney’s economic plan that will harm the poor and middle class. The advertisement ends with a maxim calling Romney the problem and not the solution. 

Mitt Romney’s ad appeared the following day, September 27^th and is called, “Too Many Americans.” Romney speaks directly to the audience in a minute long video that also discusses the economy as well as job creation. He begins by talking about the current employment situation in America. He refers to the growing number of people living in worse conditions since Obama’s election. He defines compassion in regards to welfare and then discusses how his economic plan will help the poor and middle class. He finishes with a maxim stating that America cannot afford four more years like the last four. 

The Obama advertisement employs topics of blame and attempts to build distrust, anger and even fear from viewers towards Romney. I believe the aim here is to make the audience see Romney as a wrongdoer, an unjust person and a poor leader. I think the targeted audience consists of members of the poor and middle class, especially blue collar workers who do not have job security. During this election season Romney has included his business experience as a reason he would be a superior president to Obama. This video directly attacks that statement.

In the text, Aristotle talks about the characteristics of a wrongdoer and an unjust person. He says a wrongdoer commits a deed knowing that he can get away with it(92). Then, “(U)njust…actions are matters of being unjust and doing justly…” (97). When the narrator discusses Romney’s past - his fortune made from Bain Capital and his potential tax brakes to millionaires - he suggests that Romney did something wrong and thought he got away with it. So he is therefore and unjust person. I think the paradigm here is, “Tax breaks for millionaires is wrong. Making a fortune when your worker’s are suffering is wrong. Therefore Mitt Romney is a wrong doer and an unjust person. You don’t want an unjust person running this country. If you vote for Obama, he will not let that happen.”

The video contains a lot of pathos. The scriptwriter chose a few emotionally loaded words like “shuttered” when talking about businesses and factories closing. The speaker used “slashed” instead of cut when talking about lowered wages. These words can bring up images of depression, fear, pain and suffering. Craftily chosen indeed.

The image of Romney standing in front of the Trump airplane sends the message that he rides with the millionaires; not the people. I think this image was chosen because almost all Americans know who Donald Trump is and are aware of his reputation as someone with little compassion. The Obama campaign wants people to lump Romney and Trump together in the same group. The assumption here is that the targeted audience does not want someone like Donald Trump running their country.

The first difference I noticed when I watched the Romney video was the delivery of information. An anonymous male narrates “To Us” and the words are accompanied by related images. The Romney video is much more direct. The presidential hopeful sits in front of the camera and speaks to the audience for the duration of the advertisement. I think he is employing ethos here and attempting to raise his credibility with the viewers (the same targeted group as the Obama video). He does this by looking into the camera viewer so that he can make eye contact with every person who watches this advertisement. This tactic creates the feeling that Romney is speaking directly to you.

He uses pathos when he talks about Americans struggling to make ends meet. He implies that he cares for those who are suffering from the current economic situation. He needs voters to believe that he truly cares for the American people since he is not struggling financially - nor will he ever - a fact that the Obama administration has raised frequently throughout the election. Romney has to come off as sympathetic and empathetic. Like Aristotle said, Romney has to convince viewers that he is a virtuous man in order to give an effective speech.  

Romney really gets into pathos when he talks about the word “compassion.” The aim here is to imply that Romney is the more compassionate presidential candidate. Well, logically he needs to define this word – especially when the definition leads to the conclusion that he is in fact the true compassionate candidate. He purposefully includes welfare in his definition because the Democratic Party has slammed Romney/Republican Party for not supporting programs like welfare. Here Romney attempts to flip the negative image onto Obama who is less compassionate because he has too many citizens on welfare.

So which tactic is more effective, one that focuses on past actions and implies a similarly negative future, or one that suggests poor leadership and a brighter future? First, the verdict depends on the audience. Are they informed? Let us assume someone who knows very little about the current economic situation and does not follow politics watches these two advertisements. I think Romney’s ad is more effective in that case.

 He is able to come off as more trustworthy, caring and concerned simply because he is the one speaking to the audience. He does not slam Obama directly. Instead he talks about current issues. He does not have to say that Obama is at fault. It is implied. I think the enthymeme here that people could answer themselves is, “Obama’s leadership these past four years has been ineffective because he is not truly compassionate. Romney knows what being compassionate really means and can therefore create jobs for the American people.”

While Obama’s video is effective, it does not connect as well with voters. Romney’s ad both attacks Obama’s leadership and gives hope for the future. Obama’s advertisement only slanders Romney’s skills as a leader. The creators behind the Romney ad realize that people want to hear something positive about the future. Although they want to know the details of the opponent’s failures, they also want to hear the speaker’s plans to improve their lives.

The problem with this judgment of the advertisements is that I do not have to take into account if Romney is speaking honestly or with enough knowledge to know his policies will actually work. Obama’s video may be speaking the truth and correctly warning the American people that Romney’s skills as a business leader will not improve their lives. How many people fact check these days? I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that campaigns would not allot so much money to advertisements if they were ineffective.

This brings us back to the first day of class when we talked about how many people define rhetoric in terms of empty words and promises. Romney’s effective use of rhetoric could help him sail to the Oval Office. But when it comes to actually running a country, will his campaign words hold any weight – any truth? Does it pay off to be skilled in the ways of effective speaking? I’d say that depends on if one can talk the talk and walk the walk.