viz.

Well, not exactly, but thanks to you and Erin for providing some additional context, and for responding to the question I raised. I actually remember watching the speech when he made it and having the same question about "yes we can."

But my original post also intended to call attention to some of the rhetorical strategies of the video (not to mention the speech itself) that I think are a bit fishy. I think this is worth calling attention to because Obama is regarded as a great orator (not to mention the fact that we are students of rhetoric ourselves). His ability to deliver a speech is pretty much unparalleled among our current leaders (and after 8 years of the grating verbal ineptitude of our current Prez, I understand why Obama's ability to give such great speeches is so refreshing).

But, in my 309 classes, I spent a lot of time on the connections between rhetoric and ethics. There's no question that Obama is an effective communicator: we know his message is persuasive because lots and lots of people have been persuaded by it. But there's a way in which I do find it a little bit unethical (or, as I put it before, manipulative).

If we do a little rhetorical analysis on the speech, what do we see? Well, for about the first third, properly speaking the refrain should be "Yes they did!," because he's talking about stuff other people did (like "pushing westward"--and isn't anyone bothered by the people who get left out of his story about America? Like Native Americans? Not to mention those GLBTQ Americans who kicked some ass at Stonewall and also said "Yes We Can." He usually tends to leave out the most recent front in the civil rights struggle, but, after all, this speech was given in prime time). But OK, we're Americans, we like typology, and it's perfectly valid to use paradigms to get people's attention.

Then he frames his argument a little differently, saying "yes we can" to justice, equality, opportunity, prosperity, healing this nation, and repairing this world. Well, hey, I like all those things, in fact I don't personally know anyone who doesn't. And it's hard to imagine a political speaker who wouldn't vaunt them in a speech. But now I myself am starting to sound a little suspect because I'm criticizing the speech. If I take issue with what he is saying here, does that mean I'm NOT in favor of justice and equality?

This problem will only get worse for me as I listen to the rest of the speech, because now I'm hearing about "the battle ahead," "obstacles that stand in our way," and a "chorus of cynics." Uh-oh. Here, we are implicitly asked to choose between being a part of the "chorus of cynics" on the one hand or Obama's "one America" on the other. Any criticism of Obama, no matter how valid, can now be reframed as cynicism, as an obstacle to change, as anti-Hope. To me, it registers as a fairly nakedly presented ingroup/outgroup device: either you get it, or you don't; you're one of us, or you aren't. Obviously that kind of strategy is rhetorically effective (witness the video itself, a fairly pure distillation of what's cool about this particular ingroup: it includes celebrities!), but in my opinion, it's ethically suspect. I find it especially strange for a man whose hallmark is supposed to be bringing people together. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you a "cynic" doesn't seem like the best way to start that process. (And, to me, it echoes the exclusions that marked the first part of the speech.)

And can you imagine the key line of the speech, "But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope," being uttered by any other politician (for example, Mitt Romney) and not sounding like an utter platitude?

PS: The point of my posts is not to try and change anyone's mind about whom they vote for (I suspect this is not the place for that). And I certainly think there are other reasons to support Obama--which is precisely what I find interesting about the emphasis placed on his ability to "inspire"/persuade people. To me, it's the least appealing attribute of his candidacy. Except, of course, for the fact that it makes him electable. But if one accepts the premise of my argument, and votes for him anyway because he'll win--well I understand that, but I don't quite understand why that's such an exciting prospect.

**For a summary of an alternate (mostly favorable) rhetorical analysis of Obama's '04 DNC speech, click here. (Shafer recaps an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8.4 [Winter 2005], 571-593; full text available through Project Muse.)