Comparing Rhetoric Styles of Kennedy and Clinton - Essay Example

Comparing Rhetoric Styles of Kennedy and Clinton Even greatest orators often face rhetoric problems while addressing public meetings. In fact the smartest speakers often fell in trouble because of the momentary lapse of concentration in using words or topics in public meetings. Because of the continuous flow of words and lack of control over emotions, leaders often use improper words, phrases or topics, which we usually refer as slip of tongue. Smartest speakers often find ways to overcome such rhetorical problems they may face during their speeches. They will never give the opportunity to the listeners to realize their dilemma or unexpected problems during their speeches. John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton were not only the greatest leaders of American politics in the twentieth century, but they were two of greatest American orators also. These two prominent leaders faced many rhetorical problems during their public meetings. This paper compares similar rhetorical problems faced by Clinton during his addressing in the 1992 American Legion Convention and Kennedy during his speeches to the Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. During his election campaign speech on September 12th, 1960, John F. Kennedy addressed Houston Ministerial Association which consists of ministers from the protestant community. Kennedy himself was a firm Roman Catholic believer and he forced to speak about his stands on religion. Because of the increasing conflicts between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, the Houston Ministerial Association members were curious to know what Kennedy says about religion or the beliefs of Protestants and Roman Catholics. In other words, Kennedy was forced to solve the problem; how to uphold his religious belief without causing any insults to the protestants. Same way Bill Clinton also faced same type of dilemma during his speech in the 1992 American Legion Convention. Clinton was a strong critic of Vietnam War and he had no military service experiences when he was contesting in the 1992 presidential election. The general public had some concerns about Clinton’s abilities in performing well as the commander in chief of the United States. Clinton forced to prove his credentials and abilities to lead American military during this public speech. Both Kennedy and Clinton faced the dilemma of convincing the audience; something beyond their proven abilities, values, ideals, beliefs etc. In short, public inertia was the common rhetoric problem faced by Kennedy and Clinton. Inertia is the property of an object to stay in its position until an external force changes its position. Both Kennedy and Clinton applied the external force through their speeches to change the beliefs of the audience. I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood (Kennedy) Here Kennedy tries to uphold his belief in secular values. He tries to convince the public that in an election campaign, religious beliefs and customs have less prominence in front of the interests of the country. He has stressed the importance of isolating religion from politics during this speech. He argued that America should never become a country which takes orders from the heads of different religions. He had also mentioned that any activity against a particular religion or community should be treated as the activity against the American. In other words, he neither supported his community (Roman Catholics) nor he opposed his opponent community (Protestants). He has maintained a neutral approach about religious beliefs throughout his speeches. Thus he was succeeded in convincing his supporters and opponents; both at the same time. "If you choose to vote against me because of what happened 23 years ago, that's your right and I respect that," "But it is my hope," he continued, "that you will cast your vote while looking toward the future with hope, rather than remaining fixed to the problems of the past" (Drummond). In his Speech Clinton had shown the courage to accept his demerits; at the same time he warned the public about the future. He has stressed the importance of looking forward rather than backward while selecting the President. Clinton’s opponent Bush was a popular military figure and his abilities in leading America as the commander in Chief was never questioned by anybody. Clinton was aware of his opponent’s edge over him because of his performances in American military. Clinton tried to remind the public that past is past and what is important is the future. In other words, he indirectly argued that past experiences alone many not help a person to perform well in future. Clinton was a lawyer in profession and he has put forward his arguments logically so that the audience never felt anything unrealistic in his arguments. “Mr. Clinton's plea for "fair" consideration in November, which he described as "very personal," was patently designed to soften some of the harsh sentiments that many veterans held toward him” (Drummond). To conclude, both Kennedy and Clinton faced the similar public inertia problems during their election campaigns in 1960 and 1992 respectively. Kennedy’s secular credentials were in question whereas Clinton’s lack of experience in military caused problems to him. Kennedy succeeded in convincing the public that it is necessary to isolate religion or religious beliefs from politics whereas Clinton caught the attention of the public by stressing the importance of future rather than the past. Both Kennedy and Clinton succeeded in streamlining public thoughts in a particular direction so that the public shifted their attention from their weak points to their strong points. Both of them never tried to keep any silence over their demerits. In fact they succeeded in changing their demerits in to merits. Works Cited 1. Kennedy, John F. “Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association”. 1960. Web. 17 July 2011. 2. Drummond B. “The 1992 campaign: Issues: Military Record; Clinton Confronts Draft Record In a Frank Address to Veterans” (1992). The New York Times. August 26, 1992. Web. 17 July 2011. Read More