6 Discourse Strategies and Rhetorical Devices in Robert F. Kennedy‟S

1 Introduction

The aim of this thesis is to conduct research into a selection from Robert F.

Kennedy‟s 1968 presidential election campaign speeches, in order to outline the key features of his utterances that earned him success in inspiring masses and frightened the power structure.

One of the reasons I have decided to conduct research into Robert F. Kennedy‟s rhetoric is personal. The speech given on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. has drawn my attention to Robert Kennedy‟s unique talent as a public speaker. The other reason is driven by the fact that there is a lack of literature directly discussing the aspects of

Robert F. Kennedy‟s rhetoric.

With this work I want to demonstrate that the domain of Robert F. Kennedy‟s rhetoric is one worthy to be explored and to suggest the topic for further research.

In Chapter 3, entitled Corpus Description and Evaluation I describe the events and the target audiences of the analysed public addresses. In addition I also delineate the main linguistic aspects of the particular speeches and I explain in what terms the analysed material meets the research criteria.

In Chapter 4 I describe political speech as an individual genre within the domain of political discourse. I also explain from what perspective Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses fall under the genre of political speech.

I devote Chapter 5 to Robert Kennedy‟s biography, character study and the historico-political background of the time for several reasons. During the analysis of the core research material I lay great emphasis on the contextual meaning (Firth 1957 in

Downes 1998: 371) of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances. Therefore I want to make the reader familiar with the context and the so called „member resources‟ (Fairclough 1989) within the discourse of Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses. Fairclough describes these member resources as prototypes “which people have in their heads and draw upon when they produce or interpret texts – including their knowledge of language, representations of the natural and social worlds they inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions, and so on. […] they are social in the sense that they have social origins – they are socially generated, and their nature is dependent on the social relations and struggles out of which they were generated

[…]” (Fairclough 1989: 24)

I regard Chapter 6 as the body of the thesis. This is the reason why its title is identical with the title of the thesis. Within this chapter I devote separate subchapters to the discourse strategies and different aspects of Robert Kennedy‟s rhetoric. I describe the ways of addressing the target audiences, the forms of interaction between Robert Kennedy and his audiences and the methods of confrontation of the target audiences. I examine the degree of Robert Kennedy‟s subjectivity and personal involvement in the selected addresses and I also introduce to the reader the means of persuasion applied by Robert

Kennedy and his rhetorical idiosyncrasies. Chapter 6 as the most complex and most extensive unit of the thesis is intended to provide information essential for answering the research questions formulated in the following chapter.

2 Research Objectives, Hypotheses and Methodology

The main objective of the analysis of Robert Kennedy‟s selected public addresses is to point out to what degree are his discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by factors like the topics covered, the speech events and the nature of the target audiences.

According to Stanley Fish there are two ways of language that have shaped the

„history of Western thought‟: “on the one hand, language that faithfully reflects or reports on matters of fact uncoloured by any personal or partisan agenda or desire; and on the other hand, language that is infected by partisan agendas and desires, and therefore colours and distorts the fact which it purports to reflect. It is the use of the second kind of language that makes one a rhetorician, while adherence to the first kind makes one a seeker after truth and an objective observer of the way things are.” (Fish 1989 in Richards 2008:6-7) I will analyse the discourse strategies and the rhetorical devices in Robert Kennedy‟s selected public addresses with an additional intention to prove that – in terms by Fish – he is “a seeker after truth and an objective observer of the way things are.”

During the writing process I will concentrate my effort on answering the following research questions:

1. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

topic rendered by the speaker?

2. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

speech event and the nature of the target audience?

I would like to build my hypothesis on Halliday‟s statement that “all language functions in contexts of situation and is relatable to those contexts. The question is not what

8 peculiarities of vocabulary, or grammar or pronunciation can be directly accounted for by reference to the situation. It is which kinds of situational factor determine which kinds of selection in the linguistic system.” (Halliday 2009: 94) Through my research I will attempt to prove that Robert Kennedy‟s rhetorical devices and discourse strategies in his selected utterances are predetermined by situational factors like the topic, the speech event and the nature of the target audience. I hereby underline that I will analyse the contextual meaning

(Firth 1957 in Downes 1998) of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances in order to substantiate my theory of predetermination.

From the methodological perspective, I subject the research material to a qualitative political discourse analysis. I will conduct a critical reading of the transcripts of the selected public speeches and simultaneously listen to the audio recordings of the addresses in order to outline also those aspects of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances which cannot be exposed only through the analysis of their transcripts. These are especially the paralinguistic features, like the tone of voice, intonation, gestures etc. The audio recordings will help me to clarify ambiguous situations where the question - „what is said?‟ will not allow for any adequate judgements.

In order to avoid lengthy repetitions of the titles of the selected speeches I have decided to deploy an indexing method. Therefore I will further refer to the University of

Kansas address as Speech A, to the Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther

King as Speech B and to the Cleveland City Club address as Speech C. Through the research I will refer to Robert Francis Kennedy as Robert Kennedy or RFK.

The core research material has been selected according to the following research criteria:

- public speeches with a classical rhetorical organizational pattern 9

- public speeches delivered to target audiences of different nature

- addresses with various speech events

- addresses with various topics of moral values

- utterances free of partisan agendas

In my work I predominantly rely on the following literature:

The factual information for Robert Kennedy‟s biography, character study and the historico-political background of the time I retrieve from Robert Kennedy and his Times

(1985) written by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and from RFK: His Life and Death (1968) written by Jay Jacobs. The book RFK: Collected Speeches (1993) edited and introduced by

Edwin O. Guthman and C. Richard Allen contains valuable information about the events and the context of the selected public addresses.

The theoretical knowledge for the analysis of the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices in Robert F. Kennedy‟s selected public addresses I gain from the following works:

Language and Power (1989) by Norman Fairclough is an especially useful source for critical discourse analysis as it contains several demonstrations of discourse analysis in practice. I use his model for the interpretation of the utterance meaning in the analysed material from the position of the analyst. I draw on his conception of the “member resources” within discourse, which justifies my decision to introduce to the reader the historico-political context of the analysed material and some biographical facts about

Robert F. Kennedy.

Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics (1995) by Jenny Thomas provides me with the theoretical knowledge to decipher the illocutionary forces and the implicit meanings of Robert Kennedy‟s particular utterances. Through the analysis of the

10 selected addresses in Chapter 6 I rely on her model of interpreting illocutionary forces to understand the meaning of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances depending on their context.

Language and Society (2009) by M.A.K. Halliday (edited by Jonathan J. Webster) furnishes me with the conceptions of the field, tenor and mode of the discourse, which allows me to identify, what is linguistically important in a given utterance in relation to its context. I build my hypotheses on Halliday‟s theory that situational factors determine the individual‟s selections in the linguistic system. Through the whole analysis of the selected addresses in Chapter 6 I rely on the above theory to identify to what degree are Robert

Kennedy‟s utterances predetermined from a linguistic perspective by factors, like the topic rendered, the speech events and the nature of the target audiences.

3 Corpus Description and Evaluation

The analysed resource material of this thesis consists of a selection of three significant speeches of Robert F. Kennedy‟s public addresses during his 1968 presidential campaign. Namely, in chronological order, the speech from March 18th, given at the

University of Kansas, the Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King from

April 4th, delivered in Indianapolis and the Remarks on the Mindless Menace of Violence in America, delivered at the Cleveland City Club on April 5th.

I would like to start the corpus description with some quantitative statistics about the analysed material.

The most extensive of the texts in subject is the University of Kansas address which consists of 3942 words and 17 386 characters without spaces, the second text, which is the transcript of remarks on Martin Luther King‟s assassination is composed of 618 words, counting 2653 characters without spaces and the last one, the Cleveland City Club address comprises 1080 words and 4700 characters without spaces.

In the following pages of this chapter I will describe the analysed texts individually.

My description will predominantly focus on the context behind the public addresses, including a portrayal of the setting and the occasion. At the end of the chapter I will also explain the reasons for integrating these particular speeches into the research.

The University of Kansas address (further referred to as Speech A, in abbreviated form: SA) was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy just two days after the announcement of his candidacy for the President of the United States. It was the second real public speech of his freshly started campaign. He came to Kansas with doubts about his popularity, since the

12 state was largely rural with a conservative majority, where he, as a liberal and a critic of the military efforts in Vietnam, could not expect much affability. (Kennedy and Guthman and

Allen, 1993: 323) To his and his staff‟s surprise, their warm reception at the campuses disproved their assumptions. With twenty thousand people present, Robert Kennedy drew the largest crowd in campus history. (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen, 1993: 327) He came to the university to talk to young people, the group of citizens his campaign program predominantly aimed at. The purpose of his speech was to express his viewpoint towards the situation within the country and towards the War in Vietnam, to inform and confront his audience with the problems the country was facing and to persuade them to vote for him in the election.

As usual when talking to young people he began his address with his famous self- deprecating humour to set a friendly atmosphere and create a positive relationship with the target audience before he moved on to sensitive topics.

The points of his argument lined up in the following order: the polarization and violence within the country, the alarming conditions of poverty in certain areas of the country and the progress of the War in Vietnam.

The way Robert Kennedy renders the above mentioned issues is descriptive, with linear organisation of the topics covered. The style of addressing his audience could be characterised as direct, confrontational and contemplative. Robert Kennedy‟s interaction with the target audience is most noticeable in this address.

This speech is argumentative and demonstrates a high degree of RFK‟s personal involvement as he frequently asserts his own beliefs, demands and opinion. The persuasive strategy through argument dominates the address.

The Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King (further referred to as

Speech B, in abbreviated form: SB) was delivered in Indianapolis in the evening of April

4th 1968. RFK was heading for Indianapolis to give a speech to a mostly black American community in the city ghetto as a part of the rally. Before boarding the plane he was told that Martin Luther King had been shot in Memphis, Tennessee. Right after their plane landed he was informed that Martin Luther King had died of the injury. The crowd had been gathering for the rally in the ghetto for one hour before Robert Kennedy arrived. They were already fired up, albeit they could not have heard any official news about the assassination. Some of them were armed and violent. Robert Kennedy was advised by the police representatives not to go there, because they would not be able to defend him if mob violence broke out. RFK decided to face the danger and talk to his audience, thus taking up the unpleasant role to be the first to inform them about the death of Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy‟s words were meant from his heart. He alluded to the assassination of his brother. He alleviated the tension and literally tranquilized the audience. He asked the people to seek peace in their faith as a tribute to Martin Luther King‟s legacy.

On this occasion RFK spoke to an audience of mostly black people from the ghetto of the city. His tone of voice was moderate. Every single word of his utterance showed empathy and his personal involvement in the issue. He used simple, but at the same time delicate language and short sentences built up from sophisticated words. He managed to draw the audience‟s attention to terms like „love‟, „wisdom‟, „understanding‟ and

„compassion toward one another‟.

His purpose was to shift the attitude of the crowd, to move and inspire them. He applied persuasion through emotions and through his own character. The style of the address is lyrical and emotional, obviously determined by the tragic event. 14

This speech was built up solely from Robert Kennedy‟s own words. It was delivered without a written template, only from the memory of RFK‟s own notes. For this reason this address shows several traits of extemporaneousness.

As a reaction to Martin Luther King‟s assassination the whole country was in flames that night, there were violent demonstrations, riots and boycotts initiated by African-

American communities for revenge. In Indianapolis there were no significant protests registered.

The Cleveland City Club Address (further referred to as Speech C, in abbreviated form: SC), was delivered by Robert Kennedy in Cleveland, Ohio on 5th April 1968.

After the Indianapolis speech on King‟s assassination, RFK cancelled his oncoming campaign appearances. (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 358) However he was persuaded by some African-American community leaders to keep his address, scheduled for the next day at the Cleveland City Club and to make it a plea for ending the violence.

(Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 358)

RFK addressed his speech to a crowd of mostly white executives at the City Club.

As usual, he conveyed his message in a moderate, soft tone of voice. The primary purpose of the speech was to express his concern about the violence in the country and to put the reasons for this growing violence in the country into focus.

The overall organisation of the topics is associative. The content of the speech is confrontational and contemplative. The beginning and closing paragraphs are built up from merely simple sentences, while the core of the address consists of complex philosophical units.

The style of RFK‟s utterance is emotive for he attempted to persuade the target audience through emotions and through his own reasoning. 15

This is the most lyrical address of the given selection with numerous examples of figurative language.

My decision to include in the research exactly these three public speeches of Robert

F. Kennedy during his 1968 presidential campaign was determined by several factors.

During the process of selection I took into consideration the previously formed research hypotheses. This approach directed me to choose speeches which adequately demonstrate to what extent were the rhetorical devices used predetermined by the target audience, the speech event and the topics covered in them.

My first criterion was to select speeches that are organized according to the classical rhetorical pattern, that include introduction, argumentation and conclusion. Since all of the selected speeches are built on this pattern, they evidently meet the first criterion.

The second criterion for the selection was the target audience‟s character. My firm intention was to analyse several of RFK‟s public addresses delivered to audiences of a different nature. With the given selection I managed to adhere to the plan. The speech at the

University of Kansas was delivered to students, a community of young people the predominant target group of Robert Kennedy‟s campaign. The remarks on the assassination of Martin Luther King addressed mostly black uneducated ghetto people of various age groups. The Cleveland City Club speech was given in front of mainly white executives of a higher social class. The above brief descriptions of the target audiences of the selected speeches indicate substantial heterogeneity from social perspective. The size differences between the audiences are also remarkable, with the University of Kansas crowd as the largest and the Cleveland City Club attendees as the smallest.

The third criterion for the selection was the event of the particular speeches. Here I also attempted to seek variability in order to provide more objective evaluations of the 16 rhetorical devices determined by the event of the utterance. The University of Kansas speech was an ordinary political speech during Robert Kennedy‟s campaign rally. He covered the main points of his program: the divisions, the poverty and the War in Vietnam.

He explained why he was running for the presidency and asked for the audience‟s support.

The speech on King‟s assassination was most affected by the occasion. Robert Kennedy could not deliver his pre-prepared speech instead he transformed the appearance into an honest tribute to Martin Luther King‟s memory and legacy. The third speech, the Cleveland

City Club address was still influenced by the happenings from the day before. Robert

Kennedy again had to reformulate his initial message. Although he spoke about issues also included in his campaign proclamation, one can scarcely call his address an ordinary campaign speech. Not once he did mention his candidacy nor did he ask for any support directly. Briefly we can summarise the speech events as follows: an ordinary campaign rally at a university campus, an extemporaneous tribute to the legacy of an assassinated public leader in a city ghetto and a plea for reconciliation and non-violence in front of an audience of distinguished executives.

The fourth and the most important criterion for the selection was the content of the individual speeches. Hereby I admit a relatively higher degree of subjectivity, since in this case the criterion was considerably conditioned by my own interpretation of the messages. I attempted to choose those addresses from Robert Kennedy‟s 1968 campaign speeches which most of all prove the extraordinary phenomena of his rhetoric. The University of

Kansas speech was selected for his involvement, objectivity and for the emphasis of moral obligation over material values. The lyricism and spiritualism and the calming effect of the carefully chosen words in the Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King were all factors of great importance that determined my choice for this piece of rhetoric. The 17

Cleveland City Club address is remarkable for Robert Kennedy‟s concern about humanity.

It is an emotive call for peace and reconciliation of mankind. I chose this utterance – in addition to its many unique qualities – especially for the philosophic thoughts and prophetic words it communicates, which – more than forty years later – still appear to be relevant.

The fifth criterion was to select speeches that are free of any partisan agendas and manifestations. Robert Kennedy in the selected addresses does not enforce any programs or any political ideologies he rather draws his audiences‟ attention to the real conditions in the country which affect them all. Nonetheless he categorically distinguishes himself from hiding the truth in illusions and empty promises.

I was lead by the above assumptions during the selection of the core research material. I hope the fact that the selected speeches evidently meet all the criteria defined justifies my choice.

4 Political Speech – Genre Description

Before I start discussing political speech as a genre, due to the heterogeneity of

Robert Kennedy‟s analysed addresses it is necessary to make it clear in what terms I am going to treat his selected utterances as political speeches. As speech A, the University of

Kansas address is a typical example of a pre-election campaign speech, this clarification is especially needed because of the particularities of the remarks on the assassination of

Martin Luther King (speech B) and the Cleveland City Club address (speech C). Although speeches B and C are not ordinary presidential campaign speeches, thus primarily not intended to persuade the target audiences to vote for Robert Kennedy in the elections, they still fall under the domain of political discourse. In order to justify my assumption, I would like to refer to T. A. van Dijk‟s statement that “whatever a politician says is thus by definition a form of political discourse; and whatever anybody says with a political aim

(viz., to influence the political process, e.g. decision making, policies) is also a form of political discourse.” (van Dijk 2002: 217) Van Dijk claims that political discourse is not defined by the “topic or style, but rather by who speaks to whom, as what, on what occasion and with what goals.” (van Dijk 1997, 2002: 225) If we consider that in all three selected addresses a politician speaks publicly to his audience with an intention to persuade them, then they obviously fall under the domain of political discourse. Therefore we should regard them as political speeches.

Before we treat political speech as an individual genre it is appropriate to define the meaning of the term „genre‟. Bhatia defines genre as “an instance of a successful achievement of a specific communicative purpose using conventionalized knowledge of

19 linguistic and discoursal resources.” (Bhatia 1993: 14) He highlights communicative purpose as a factor that predominantly determines particular genre when he declares that

“although there are a number of other factors, like content, form, intended audience, medium or channel that influence the nature and construction of a genre, it is primarily characterized by the communicative purpose(s) that it is intended to fulfil.” (Bhatia 1993:

13) In terms of a political speech as a genre, this communicative purpose predominantly lies in persuasion, which is achieved through the speaker‟s character, through arousing emotion in the target audience and through argumentation. In political speeches there is considerable emphasis on the perlocutionary act, defined by Downes (1998) in reference to Austin (1962) as “the act of producing an effect” on the hearer by uttering certain words (Downes 1998: 374) By the word „effect‟ we may understand the phenomenon what

Bakhtin refers to as “[…] actively responsive understanding with delayed action” when he claims that “sooner or later what is heard and actively understood will find its response in the subsequent speech or behavior of the listener.” (Bakhtin 1986: 69) This „delayed action‟ is especially typical for political speeches since in most of the cases no immediate „action‟ is required to be taken by the audience at the moment of the utterance.

If we consider political speeches from the perspective of abstract categories introduced by M. A. K. Halliday (2009) like the field of discourse, mode of discourse and tenor of discourse then we may state that the field, or in other terms the topic or the subject of political speeches is politics. In relation to the mode of the discourse, political speeches are most of the time both written and spoken. In relation to the tenor of the discourse we distinguish between two poles, the speaker and his audience. The relationship between them is imbalanced as the verbal communication is predominantly expected of the speaker and the audience act as recipients. This does not necessarily mean that there are no forms of 20 interaction between the speaker and the audience of a political speech as the listeners may react to the speaker‟s utterances by applause, as a form of their approval, or by clamour as a form of disagreement. Another characteristic of political speeches is that the topics rendered and the form is most of the time pre-prepared. In terms of classical rhetoric in political speeches there is great emphasis on the „invention‟, “the discovery of the available means of persuasion.” (Aristotle in Richards 2008: 33)

5 Robert F. Kennedy‟s Biography, Character Study and the

Historico - Political Background of the Time

5.1 Biography

Robert Francis Kennedy was born as the seventh child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy in Brookline, Massachusetts on 20th November 1925. His parents were strict Catholics, especially his mother Rose, which had a strong impact on him. However the most influential member of the family was the father, Joseph. He insisted on success and competition and this was what he expected from his children above all. He once said: “We don‟t want any losers around here. In this family we want winners. Don‟t come in second or third – that doesn‟t count – but win!” (Schlesinger 1985:15) The above lines clearly demonstrate what a challenge it meant to be a Kennedy. Actually the whole life of all the

Kennedy children was significantly marked by a constant struggle to appeal to their father.

Robert especially had this inner incentive to get his father‟s attention and praise. He later remarked: “I was the seventh of nine children and when you come from that far down you have to struggle to survive.” (Schlesinger 1985: 24)

After attending Milton Academy he went to Harvard, but he interrupted his studies in order to join the Navy during the Second World War. He was assigned to active duty as a seaman second class aboard a newly commissioned destroyer, the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., named after his fallen brother. (Jacobs 1968: 48) Before he was engaged in any action the war ended, so he returned to Harvard to continue in his studies and receive a degree in

22 government in 1948. The same year he applied for admission to the University of Virginia

Law School, where he earned his degree in law in 1951.

He married Ethel Skakel, the daughter of the founder of Great Lakes Carbon

Corporation in June 1950. They both were devoted Catholics and family oriented, so in a relatively short time they became the parents of eleven children.

Robert Kennedy‟s political career started with managing his brother John‟s senate campaign for Massachusetts. Later he became the member of the Senate Subcommittee on

Investigations lead by Senator Joseph McCarthy where he engaged himself in submitting reports about certain US allies that were supplying communist China with goods during the

Korean War. After six months he resigned the committee due to some disagreements with the management. Encouraged by McCarthy‟s subsequent downfall he rejoined the Senate‟s permanent subcommittee and shortly became the leader of the Senate Rackets Committee investigating corruption within trade unions. When his investigation of Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters Union was televised Robert F. Kennedy received nationwide recognition. He publicly accused Hoffa of corruption within the Union and malversation of almost 10 million dollars in union funds. This act was a clear evidence of his relentless fortitude when it came to fighting against injustice and corruption. Nevertheless, it also showed his bravery, since not many people ventured to uncover swindles of such influential figures of organised crime as Jimmy Hoffa was that time.

In 1960 he resigned from the Rackets Committee to manage his brother‟s presidential election campaign. The campaign was successful and after John F. Kennedy became President of the United States, he appointed Robert Kennedy as Attorney General.

Under his tenure the Department of Justice raised the number of convictions against organised crime by 800%. As Attorney General he became deeply committed to the Civil 23

Rights Movement and to African-Americans fighting for equal rights. He also played an important role in constructing the Civil Rights Act of 19641 (see p. 34), proposed by

President Kennedy, which was passed one year after his death. During the Kennedy

Administration the two brothers closely worked together, Robert was not just the Attorney

General, but also the President‟s closest advisor. His contribution to the strategy to blockade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis opened the door to negotiations with the

Soviet Union, thus preventing military actions and a potential nuclear war.

The assassination of President Kennedy on November 22nd 1963 plunged Robert

Kennedy into a deep despair which he could not overcome. The tragedy left him in agony and he sank into lethargy.

After a short period of serving under President Johnson he resigned his post of

Attorney General to begin his campaign for the US senate from New York. The campaign was successful and Robert Kennedy won by a large number of votes. As the Senator of NY

State he became deeply committed to the improvement of living conditions of the underprivileged and dispossessed citizens of the state and of the whole country. After his brother‟s tragic death he became even more concerned with humanistic issues than before.

He initiated programs to create job opportunities for the unemployed. He applied models to support private industry growth. Many of his models are still in use and successfully operating today. He also brought the facts about domestic issues, especially of poverty in rural areas, to the conscience of the nation. He was extremely touched by the children in the

Mississippi delta suffering from hunger and he called on the government to take immediate action. During his Senate years he travelled to many points of the world as the advocate of civil rights to support and encourage the disadvantaged to stand up for their rights and for justice. As a Senator he got more and more concerned about the war in Vietnam and he 24 started to advocate that the time had come to bring the war to an end. He began to openly oppose many of President Johnson's policies-both foreign and domestic.

After a long period of hesitation, he announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States on March 16th 1968, he did so - according to his own words - merely to propose new policies than to oppose any man. In his campaign program he urged the resolution of both domestic and foreign issues. He wanted to end the polarization within the country between poor and rich, between blacks and whites. He wished to stop the riots in the streets and ensure equal rights for all citizens of the country. However, what he was most determined to do was to bring to an end the Vietnam War, which he thought had done extensive harm to the country both from a domestic and an international perspective.

Robert Kennedy‟s campaign started with remarkable success, he became extremely popular with citizens of African-American and Hispanic origin, but he also evolved into becoming a champion for all the poor and underprivileged. He managed to win the most crucial primaries in Nebraska and Indiana and his chances to win the election grew day by day.

Unfortunately, on June 5th 1968 his life was taken by an assassin‟s bullet right after he concluded his California primary victory speech in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

5.2 Character Study

Robert Kennedy was born as the seventh child of Rose and Joseph Kennedy. He was the smallest and thinnest of all the children. As a child he was shy, moody and quiet, however in certain cases very emotional. This mood was evidently the result of his loneliness caused by the isolation emerging from the big age difference between him and

25 his much older brothers. His strong internal inducement to attract his father‟s attention and appraisal caused him to become extremely competitive. His loneliness continued during his school years. He did not make many friends, since he had to change schools quite often. He was a very intelligent boy, but he had to work for what he achieved.

The tragic loss of Joseph Jr. in the war caused Joseph Kennedy to pay more attention to his third son that he had ever done before. Robert reacted with alacrity. It escalated the purposeful change in his character intended “to overcome doubts of his own worth and to win the love of the most important person in his life.”(Schlesinger 1985: 67)

He had a strong need to relentlessly demonstrate that, like his father, he was a tough man.

Despite the protective covering, his emotionalism remained as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. describes it “[…] both as concern and as vulnerability, expressed in moodiness, taciturnity or a certain brusque harshness, expressed too in persisting sympathy for other underdogs.”

(Schlesinger 1985: 67) “He became in these years the scrappy adolescent, the relentless kidder, the ferocious competitor, the combative mick. Only those who knew him very well perceived the gentleness within.” (Schlesinger 1985: 67)

He took all his responsibilities and duties very seriously. Any task he engaged in, he strived to accomplish with maximal commitment to achieve the best result. The two successful campaigns of his brother John, the one for the senator of Massachusetts and the presidential election campaign in 1960, which he both managed, are clear evidence that he was an excellent strategist and a tireless fighter. Joseph Kennedy Sr. made a remark about his sons that perfectly describes Robert Kennedy‟s attitude. He said: “Jack works as hard as any mortal man can. - Bobby goes a little farther.” (Jacobs 1968: 78) As a consequence of this derring-do, many of his antagonists criticised him for being ruthless, arrogant and rude when he carried out the functions of a relentless examiner in the Senate Subcommittee on 26

Investigations and later in the Senate Rackets Committee. Young Robert Kennedy was extremely sensitive to injustice and had not opted to be “the perfect gentleman” in his investigative methods. (Jacobs 1968)

When it came to family the so called „ruthless investigator‟ and the second most respected man in the Government of the Unites States changed to a gentle, loving and affectionate father and husband. Wesley Barthelmes2 (see p. 34) describes in an interview from 1969 Robert Kennedy‟s sensitivity for young people and especially for his own children as follows: when his kids were around him or he got a call from them in the office, no matter who was sitting on the sofa talking to him about some profound issue, “he would sort of melt and his face would literally be wreathed in smiles, and he would listen […] the conversation would go on and it was apparent that it was not him who ended the conversation, but his child on the end of the line.”(Barthelmes in an interview with Roberta

Green from 1969)

With the tragic death of President Kennedy on 22nd November 1963 Robert

Kennedy‟s life reached a breaking point that had a serious impact on the rest of his life. He could not overcome the pain caused by the loss of his brother. He held himself responsible for his brother‟s death, being convinced the enemies he had made during the investigations and as Attorney General had killed his brother in revenge. The tragedy not only changed

Robert Kennedy's life but his character as well. His brashness and cockiness were fading and he happened to explore the regions of doubt and deeply search his soul. (Jacobs 1968:

99) It took him months to find his way again and by the time he returned to real life he had evidently become a different man. He understood that the death of his brother gave a new sense of purpose to the world when he addressed his audience with the words: “If President

Kennedy‟s life and death are to mean anything, we young people must work harder for a 27 better life for all the people of the world.” (Jacobs 1968: 100-2) With this statement he expressed the legacy he became truly devoted to until the rest of his life, which was to make not just the United States, but the whole world a better place to live for all human beings. After his brother‟s assassination he dedicated himself even more than ever before to the Civil Rights Movement and to the improvement of the living conditions of the underprivileged and dispossessed.

After he was elected to the Senate from New York State in 1964 he deeply engaged himself in domestic issues. He became troubled by the progress of the Vietnam War during his senate years. Ending the war in Vietnam was the main reason he decided to run for the presidency in 1968. First he was strongly determined not to oppose Lyndon Johnson the incumbent President. He knew his running would divide the Democratic Party and gain him enemies in the conservative wing of the party establishment. Eventually the escalation of the war in Vietnam made him change his decision and he announced that he would seek the presidency and run for his party's nomination.

His life was cut short by an assassin's bullet, but his legacy survived in the hearts of people who love peace and humanism all over the world. Let us finish these lines with a quote from the eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy delivered by his brother Edward at Saint

Patrick‟s Cathedral in New York on June 8th 1968:

“My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life.

He should be remembered simply as a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us, and what he wished for others, will some day come to pass for all the world.” (Edward M. Kennedy in

Jacobs 1968: 3) 28

5.3 Historico - Political Background and the 1968 Presidential Election

Campaign

The late 1960s were probably one of the most volatile periods in the history of the

United States of America. The country was facing serious problems both on the domestic and international level. The escalation of the War in Vietnam lead to serious doubts about the legitimacy of the military intervention of the United States in Vietnam from the international perspective, and caused at least the loss of the prestige of the country on the foreign platform. The question of the war not only meant a growing concern abroad, but also resulted in polarization of the country. Despite of the increasing numbers of anti-war protests all over the States, there were still many people supporting the administration of

President Johnson and his handling of the military conflict. However the extreme divisions between the citizens of the country were predominantly caused by the growing gap between the rich and poor, between African-Americans and white citizens. These differences, in many cases reached extremes that paralyzed the country from within.

The threat of polarization and the excessive differences between the living standards of the citizens was already recognized during the Kennedy administration and several efforts were made to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, President Kennedy‟s tragic death prevented these acts from being fully accomplished, however they still initiated momentous legislative changes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 proposed by President Kennedy, passed one year after his death meant a landmark in the history of the United States. In fact there had been not so much focus on improving the living conditions of black Americans since the end of the Civil War than during the Kennedy and the early Johnson administration.

(Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 362) The founding of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission3 (see p. 34), the Civil Rights Act of 19654 (see p. 35), the War on

Poverty, the appointment of a Negro to the Supreme Court and to the cabinet were all acts of great importance and unique value, however they did not necessarily mean any tremendous changes in practice. In other ways, these initiatives did not fulfill minority expectations. Polarization between racial groups continued. Many people could not understand the reason for the violent demonstrations that were continuing all over the country. They believed blacks to be unappreciative of the efforts and expenses spent on the legislative changes and social programs. However they could not fully comprehend the difficult conditions the blacks still had to contend with in their struggle for existence, despite the many improvements undertaken by the government. During a televised press conference in Washington D.C. on 7th April 1968, Robert F. Kennedy pertinently described the situation and the differing views from the black citizens‟ perspective. He spoke eloquently in behalf of the underprivileged and the people of the ghetto about their experience. He interpreted what a negligible effect the Civil Rights Acts had on their everyday lives, that their children still went to substandard schools, their housing was also substandard, that the fathers could not get jobs, that parents had to divorce to get welfare, that the conditions in the ghetto were not better but even worse than they had been in 1960.

(Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 363)

As the 1968 presidential election approached, the domestic issues that I have described above as well as the escalation of the Vietnam War continued to result in riots and large scale protests which tore the country apart. Some historians even compare this time to the era of the Civil War. Masses of people were turning against authorities violently marching through the streets in anger and despair. C. Richard Allan and Edwin O. Guthman 30 in their book RFK-Collected Speeches (1993) very appropriately characterised the year

1968 and the situation of that time when they called it “the decade‟s true discordant climax” with grim and guarded public mood, the year, when the nation “was splitting along more than merely racial lines.” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 331) It was becoming evident to every reasonable human being that the country needed radical changes.

Perhaps there was no political representative more concerned and worried about the situation in the United States than Robert F. Kennedy. On the one hand he was aware of the enormous work that needed to be done in order to unite the people of the country, to stop the growing polarization and to ensure decent living conditions for all citizens, but on the other hand he also knew the drawbacks in challenging an incumbent president of his own party. Therefore his initial plan was not to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for the presidential election before 1972, when President Johnson‟s second term in the White

House would end. At that time Robert Kennedy was convinced that Lyndon B. Johnson would remain in his office after the elections in 1968. However, he had serious misgivings about the future of the country, since both potential scenarios – “four more years of

Johnson or four years of Nixon” – would be in his own words “a catastrophe for the United

States.” (Schlesinger 1985: 900) He was facing a serious dilemma of whether to run for the presidency or not. He could not expect much support from the conservative wing of the

Democratic Party, who regarded the challenging of an incumbent president as an immoral act. Robert Kennedy had no doubts the President would take advantage of his control over events, if he was opposed by anybody during the campaign. He was no less certain that many of his antagonists would accuse him of a personal vendetta, since his dislike of

Johnson had been an open secret since President Kennedy named him as his vice- 31 presidential choice. The main reason that held Robert Kennedy back from running was expressed by him in the company of his family and friends when at one point he said: “I think if I run I will go a long way toward proving everything that everybody who doesn‟t like me has said about me…that I‟m just a selfish, ambitious, little SOB that can‟t wait to get his hands on the White House.” (Schlesinger 1985: 902) By the end of January 1968

Robert F. Kennedy was determined not to run for the presidency despite all the support and urging from his wife and his closest friends. At the National Press Club he told his assistants: “[…] I would not oppose Lyndon Johnson under any conceivable circumstances.” His press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, persuaded him to substitute

„conceivable‟ with „foreseeable‟ before making his statement official. (Schlesinger 1985:

903) The course of the events that followed proved that the replacement of the terms had been appropriate. In February 1968 two catalytic events made Robert Kennedy reconsider his former standpoint. Those were the Vietcong‟s surprise Tet offensive5 (see p. 35) that disproved all the optimistic pronouncements of the Johnson administration about the progress of the war and the Kerner Comission report6 (see p. 35) on 1967 urban riots and the divisions within the country, which was totally disregarded by the White House.

(Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 319) The governance had evidently failed to handle two of the weightiest problems of the country that Robert Kennedy was deeply concerned about. His strong feelings about all the things that needed to be done and his unique empathy toward the poor, the underprivileged and the victims of the Vietnam War finally compelled him to enter the race. By the beginning of March 1968 he had made the decision to run for the presidency of the United States of America. The results of the New

Hampshire primary held on 12th March, where fellow Democrat Eugene McCarthy polled

42.2 percent to Johnson‟s 49.4 percent, convinced Robert Kennedy that the incumbent

President was not undefeatable. (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 319)

On 16th March 1968 Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States of America. In his announcement he stressed he was not running to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. The main points of his campaign program were: ending the Vietnam War, ending the polarization in the country, fighting poverty and improving the living conditions for the underprivileged. He himself admitted that he had made a lot of enemies in “business, labour, the newspapers, even among most of the politicians” during his career. When he was asked who was for him, he replied: “The young, the minorities, the Negroes and the Puerto Ricans.” (Schlesinger 1985: 901) The progress of the campaign proved his assumptions when he became extremely popular with the above listed communities. He predominantly aimed his campaign at young people, because he saw the potential in the youth to make the radical changes that were necessary in order to build a better future.

Shortly after Robert Kennedy‟s announcement, President Johnson withdrew from the contest. After Johnson‟s resignation, Hubert Humphrey, the Vice President announced his candidacy, but decided to stand aside from the competition in the primaries. The following state primaries showed that Kennedy and McCarthy were running an almost even race. Kennedy won in four, while McCarthy won in six states however in four of the states where they campaigned against each other, Robert Kennedy won three primaries

(Nebraska, Indiana and California). His popularity and ability to win the nomination and ultimately the election were growing after the two crucial primaries in Indiana and

Nebraska, but unfortunately his life and successful campaign were cut short, when just a couple of minutes after giving his California primary victory speech he was assassinated. 33

The nomination of the Democratic Party was given to Hubert Humphrey. The

Republican nominee was Richard Nixon and Governor George Wallace of Alabama was the nominee of an independent third party.

The results of the election showed Nixon‟s 43.4 percents to Humphrey‟s 42.7.

Richard Nixon became the 37th President of the United Sates.

One can only speculate how differently history would have been written if Robert

Kennedy had been elected president of the United States.

Notes

1. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Proposed by President Kennedy, signed by President

Johnson on July 2nd 1964. The Act outlawed “discrimination in voting,

employment, public education and public accommodations and facilities.”

(Schlesinger 1985: 696)

2. Wesley Barthelmes (1922-1976) – Senator Robert F. Kennedy‟s press secretary

from 1965 to 1966. (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/RFKOH-

WB-02.aspx)

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “is a federal law

enforcement agency that enforces laws against workplace discrimination. The

EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color,

national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information and retaliation for

reporting, participating in and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.” - Initiated by

President John F. Kennedy in 1961; established on July 2nd 1965 under the

administration of President Johnson.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission) 34

4. Civil Rights Act of 1965 – “Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1965 to ensure the

voting rights of African Americans. Though the Constitution's 15th Amendment

(passed 1870) had guaranteed the right to vote regardless of „race, color, or previous

condition of servitude‟, African Americans in the South faced efforts to

disenfranchise them, including poll taxes and literacy tests, as late as the 1960s,

when the civil rights movement focused national attention on infringements of their

voting rights; Congress responded with the Voting Rights Act, which prohibited

Southern states from using literacy tests to determine eligibility to vote. Later laws

prohibited literacy tests in all states and made poll taxes illegal in state and local

elections.” (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights+Act+of+1965)

5. Tet offensive – in February 1968 “as the Vietnamese Tet holiday began, the

Vietcong launched a coordinated assault against American and South Vietnamese

positions throughout the country. Saigon experienced fierce hand-to-hand fighting,

and the American embassy was in enemy hands for several hours. In the first week

of the intensified action, nearly six hundred United States soldiers died.” (Kennedy

and Guthman and Allen 1993: 306)

6. Kerner Comission report – “Lyndon Johnson‟s response to the urban riots of 1967

had been to appoint a Commission on Civil Disorders, with Governor Otto Kerner

of Illinois as chairman. At the end of February 1968 the Kerner Commission

submitted a powerful report. It portrayed a nation „moving toward two societies,

one black, one white – separate but unequal‟ and proposed strong and specific

action to reverse the deepening racial division.” (Schlesinger 1985: 908)

6 Discourse Strategies and Rhetorical Devices in Robert F.

Kennedy‟s 1968 Presidential Election Campaign Speeches

6.1 Speaker‟s Relationship toward the Target Audience

In this part of the chapter I will describe Robert F. Kennedy‟s relationship towards the target audiences of his utterances. I will demonstrate the features of addressing the attendees on excerpts taken from the core research material. In order to avoid lengthy repetitions of the titles of the particular speeches I will apply the indexing process outlined in the chapter dedicated to the objectives, hypotheses and methodology. Thus, starting with this section I will refer to the University of Kansas Address as speech A, to Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King as speech B and to the Cleveland City Club

Address as speech C.

In this section I will delineate Robert Kennedy‟s ways of addressing the target audiences, the forms of interactions between him and the audiences and the methods of open confrontation of the audiences. I will dedicate separate subchapters within the chapter to the above individual aspects. By the description of the ways of addressing and by the open confrontation of the audiences, the suggested texts are adequate to provide relevant information. However by the description of the forms of interaction between the speaker and the audience I had to depend on the audio recordings of the particular addresses, since only those expose the audiences‟ reactions to the utterances.

6.1.1 Ways of Addressing the Target Audience

Within this subchapter I understand the term „addressing‟ as the form of address at the beginning of the speeches, when Robert Kennedy makes contact with the target audiences and starts building the relationship with them. The ways of addressing the target audiences show a considerable variety in the selected speeches. In this section I will go through each of them in chronological order and I will outline RFK‟s methods of making contact with his listeners.

The lengthiest and the most complex form of address is applied in the University of

Kansas speech, marked A. Although RFK speaks mostly to young students he begins his speech formally:

“Chancellor, Governor and Mrs. Docking, Senator and Mrs. Pierson, ladies and gentlemen and my friends: I'm very pleased to be here.” (SA par. 1-2)

In his address he distinguishes between several groups. At first he addresses the dignitaries present in order to stress the earnestness of the event and to imply that important messages will be conveyed if the Governor and Senator of Kansas and their wives have decided to attend the meeting. Then he speaks to those members of the audience who he also wants to treat formally, the professors, the parents etc. stating “ladies and gentlemen.” Finally he greets his friends, the students who are the prior target group of his utterance. When he calls them friends he really means it. I referred earlier to an interview with Wesley

Barthelmes, where he talks about Robert Kennedy‟s “great sensitivity to young people.”

(Barthelmes in an interview with Roberta W. Geen 1969) The following lines will be direct evidence of Robert Kennedy‟s talent to win young people‟s favour. His initial formal

37 attitude is transformed into a sarcastic humour to win and cheer up his audience when he mentions two rival universities:

He lightens the seriousness of the event by stating he has not come to give a speech, just to deliver a message from the Kansas State University students about their affection for their colleagues from the University of Kansas. Robert Kennedy‟s words are received with huge laughter which evidently proves that the audience understood the implicature. Obviously the word „love‟ is meant pejoratively as the two universities were rivals on several platforms: sports, scientific competitions etc. Then he stresses that he is not an “alumnus of

Villanova” to make it clear that in no way is he a graduate or even a fan of Villanova

University who were recently defeated in a basketball competition by the University of

Kansas. This reference to Villanova is RFK‟s clever manoeuvre to pay the students a compliment. In addition to the amusement of the audience, he implicitly suggests that he knows them and has understanding for the moments and events of their student days – the sports competitions, the efforts to act superior in front of the rival universities etc. Thus he gets closer to his young audience and proves that despite coming from New York, the young people of Kansas are still the focus of his attention.

He sends forth a positive impulse towards the audience when he stresses how pleased he is to be there, and how much he appreciates the opportunity and their reception saying:

“I'm very pleased and very touched, as my wife is, at your warm reception here.” (SA par. 3)

He uses emotionally and positively charged words like „pleased‟, „touched‟ to set a personal and emotive atmosphere between the audience and him. As he shares his wife‟s feelings and keeps on talking in the first person singular, he does so to emphasise the personal tone of his utterance.

With his typical self-deprecating humour and sarcasm he exposes some comic situations from the Senate background, thus strengthening the leisure mood in the hall.

“I think of my colleagues in the United States Senate, and I think of my friends there, and I think of the warmth that exists in the Senate of the United States I don't know why you're laughing. I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: "We hope you recover," and the vote was 42 to 40.” (SA par. 3)

Whether the above story is true or not, it is received with an ovation and shows the

Senators from a different perspective, as people with a sense of humour and witticism.

Robert Kennedy with this anecdote probably wants to demonstrate that he is balanced with and accepts his unpopularity among certain politicians of the country (as a result of his fierce criticism of the administration) with humour.

What really impresses his young audience is when he makes the following remark:

“I don't know whether you're going to like what I'm going to say today but I just want you to remember, as you look back upon this day, and when it comes to a question of who you're going to support that it was a Kennedy who got you out of class.” (SA par. 4)

RFK again proves that he can identify himself with the students that he has understanding of them. Obviously for students such event means not just some interesting experience, but also an escape from the stereotypy of the lectures and seminars. Robert Kennedy takes advantage of the students‟ feelings in order to reinforce his friendly image.

After winning the target audience‟s favour through humour and by creating a loose and friendly atmosphere, Robert Kennedy proves to his listeners that he has more ties with

Kansas than they might have expected that he is not an alien in their state. He starts talking about his associations with respected political leaders from Kansas. He stresses how

„proud‟ he is “to be in the Senate” with Senator Pierson and “Senator Carlson, respected not just on the Republican side.” (SA par. 5) He expresses his happiness to see his “old friend, Governor Docking,” whose father “was more committed to President Kennedy during the most adverse circumstances” (SA par. 6) than anyone else. He does not forget to mention that he himself worked together with the Governor, and “how highly President

Kennedy valued” their collaboration. All these facts and names he emphasises in order to persuade his audience that although he comes from a completely different, urban region, he is still connected to them through his relationship with many distinguished representatives of the state.

As he is getting closer to the end of the introductory part of his speech he quotes

William Allen White1 (see p. 103), who once wrote:

“If our colleges and universities do not breed men who riot, who rebel, who attack life with all the youthful vision and vigor, then there is something wrong with our colleges. The more riots that come out of our college campuses, the better the world for tomorrow.” (White 1896 in SA par. 8)

It is questionable whether it is not paradoxical for Robert Kennedy to quote somebody who publicly roused the youth to riot, if he himself fights for ending the violence and riots in the country. Probably the most logical explanation for this is that he wants to stress that the

„better world for tomorrow‟ is in his opinion in the hands of the younger generations. He implies to them that most of all they are expected to make a difference that they are the group of citizens with the greatest potential to make radical changes. 40

He refers to White for several significant reasons. Firstly he wants to pay tribute to an acknowledged alumnus of the University of Kansas and thus appeal to his audience.

Secondly he wants to draw a parallel between himself and White. The following lines will give reasons for this assumption.

“And I know what great affection this university has for him. [for William Allen White] He is an honored man today, here on your campus and around the rest of the nation. But when he lived and wrote, he was reviled as an extremist and worse. For he spoke he spoke as he believed. He did not conceal his concern in comforting words. He did not delude his readers or himself with false hopes and with illusions. This spirit of honest confrontation is what America needs today. It has been missing all too often in the recent years and it is one of the reasons that I run for President of the United States. For we as a people are strong enough; we are brave enough to be told the truth of where we stand. And this country needs honesty and candor in its political life and from the President of the United States. But I don't want to run for the presidency I don't want America to make the critical choice of direction and leadership this year without confronting that truth. I don't want to win support of votes by hiding the American condition in false hopes or illusions. I want us to find out the promise of the future, what we can accomplish here in the United States, what this country does stand for and what is expected of us in the years ahead.”(SA par. 9-11)

RFK was also criticized by his opponents for being too critical of the administration. By telling White‟s story he draws a parallel between them and implies that time may prove the relevance of his words and behaviour as in the case of White. He seeks justification of his own “spirit of honest confrontation” in White‟s legacy. This way he shifts his audience to such a mood that opens them up to be honestly confronted with the reality. Then he talks with passion about the reasons why he runs for the President of the United States. He raises his voice and uses lots of contrasts and repetitions to grab his audience‟s attention. He says: “we are strong enough; we are brave enough” – he talks in the first person plural to express equality and unity with his audience. He signifies to them that they deserve to be treated with respect, with „honesty and candor‟ and “from the President of the United

States.” Robert Kennedy does not say it directly, but from his words it becomes evident that he implies that the incumbent President and his administration lack these attributes.

Then he uses negation three times to stress that he detaches himself from the current attitude of hiding the real conditions in the country, thus implicitly suggesting that he is different, he is not that „ordinary‟ politician, who wins support through “[…]hiding the

American condition in false hopes or illusions.”

From the above lengthy consideration we can see how coherently and strategically

Robert Kennedy built up the relationship with his audience. He showed respect, he entertained them with humorous stories, uncovered his associations with their formal representatives and expressed devotion to their famous historical figure. All these methods and gestures he applied to earn their trust, to persuade them that his speech would be one of candour.

The form of address in speech B, (Remarks on the Assassination of Martin

Luther King) is less extensive which is understandable due to the occasion. The circumstances I described in detail in the Corpus Description, but for the readers‟ convenience I will very briefly summarise it again. Robert Kennedy was heading to

Indianapolis for a campaign rally in the city ghetto when he was told Martin Luther King had been shot and right after his plane landed he learned King had died. Despite many warnings he decided to face the danger of possible violence and keep his address which he transformed into a tribute to King‟s legacy.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some -- some very sad news for all of you -- Could you lower those signs, please? -- I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the

world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.” (SB par. 1-2.)

Robert Kennedy addresses the audience very politely. He indicates that he respects them and he wishes to cooperate with them. Talking in the first person singular and saying:

“I‟m going to talk to you…” he creates a personal atmosphere and the necessary channel for this communication. He says he is only going to talk „just for a minute or so‟, clearly suggesting something has happened and therefore he is not planning to give his campaign speech. In the next sentence he uncovers the reason. After saying “I have some […]” he makes a pause. This pause connotes that he would like to communicate some very important message to them. After the pause he repeats his previous words and eventually tells the audience he is in charge of sharing some very sad news with them. Then he makes a pause again to ask the crowd to lower the signs. Here he means the banners they have brought to the campaign rally, what that event was supposed to be. By this gesture he emphasizes, how he requires them to cooperate with him, how seriously he treats the situation giving no space to any disturbing factors. Nevertheless as an implicature, he also shows how firmly he stands back from benefiting from this event in favour of his presidential campaign. He uses a lot of repetition not to lose the contact with his listeners and the path of his thoughts. He lists groups of people who might be traumatised by this tragic news: the immediate audience, his fellow citizens and „people all over the world‟ who love peace. He implicitly suggests that they are connected together by the values they have inherited from Martin Luther King. By saying “our fellow citizens” he again shows that he is also a member of this community and thus expresses equality with his audience.

Eventually he uses an anaphoric reference: „that is‟ to get back to the initial thought, the sad

43 news and he announces that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed. Robert Kennedy stops for a while to give his audience a little time to deal with the tragic news. He does not intervene until they quite down. This way he shows empathy and respect towards them.

Then he carefully brings their attention back to himself by uttering the name of their leader, their idol.

“Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort.” (SB par. 3)

In addition to calming the audience down by positively charged words like „love‟ and

„justice‟ and „fellow human beings‟, RFK also reminds them about Martin Luther King‟s legacy and message. He underlines that King died “in the cause” of his effort and implies that any violent behaviour would not just dishonour his legacy but also his death. By reaching this moment he creates a close and intimate atmosphere. The attendees with unexpected calmness absorb his words and at this point it seems as though he was becoming their new leader.

Then he addresses only a part of his audience, albeit in this case it means the majority of the target audience.

He indicates that his following words will be intended for the black members of the audience. RFK confronts them with their own feelings and draws a parallel between himself and them. He expresses understanding and empathy as he shares their grief and with his compassionate behaviour he alleviates the tension in the crowd.

Obviously the briefest form of address is in speech C given at the Cleveland City

Club. As described in the Corpus Description this speech was delivered the next day after the Indianapolis address on the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy gets right to the point with his audience:

“[This is a time of shame] and a time of sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity -- my only event of today -- to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.” (SC par. 1)

RFK skips any polite greeting to the audience. He starts with negatively charged words like

„shame‟ and „sorrow‟. Evidently he wants to express his despair and grief over the tragic event from the day before. This time he does not need to strategically build up the relationship with his audience, since he has already had some kinds of association with many of them. Nevertheless this target audience consists of people of similar age groups and social class like him. Robert Kennedy does not hesitate to confront them with the alarming conditions in the country right from the beginning. He suggests that this is not an ordinary time and they should not expect an ordinary speech. He again holds back from benefiting from this occasion in favour of his campaign stressing that “it is not a day for politics.”

His whole address is filled with sadness. Robert Kennedy emphasises that this is his only event of the day but he has saved it for them. By this statement he implies that he is distressed by the happenings and cannot adhere to his initial program. Nonetheless, he also honours his audience indicating that he respects them so much that despite the sorrowful circumstance he decided to keep the address. He speaks in the first person singular and applies the personal deixis „you‟ to create the channel for the communication. Then he shows involvement and the fact that he continues in the first person plural indicates that the 45

“mindless menace of violence in America” is affecting the lives of all of them and suggests that the situation requires at least their attention and their action.

By this relatively short form of address RFK succeeds to create a path for his message. Even though he addressed the target audience unconventionally, the speech event and especially his mood after the happenings from the day before justify the appropriateness of his act.

6.1.2 Forms of Interaction between the Speaker and the Target Audience

In this section of the chapter I will examine the forms of interaction between Robert

Kennedy and his target audiences in the selected speeches. If we study the mode (Halliday

2009) of the particular utterances we can claim that each of them is a public speech both written and spoken. However in case of speech B the spoken form dominates, since Robert

Kennedy conveyed his Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King from his own notes, but most importantly from memory and he extemporised as well. In case of speech A and C he to great extent relied on the pre-prepared textual material and a considerable part of the speech was read out by him. If we consider the tenor (Halliday 2009) of the analysed addresses, we can state that in each of them Robert Kennedy talks to his audience publicly, and the responses by the audiences can be characterised as nonverbal. Since the given transcripts of the speeches do not expose the reactions of the audience to RFK‟s utterances,

I will predominantly rely on the audio recordings of the speeches to identify them. As the question-answer part of the appearance at the University of Kansas has not been included in the research, I can declare that in each of the addresses the responses of the audiences are expressed in forms of laughter or loud applause. Naturally, the random, indecipherable 46 cries of some individuals will not be considered, because I am determined to treat the target audience within the analysis as a complex, but single entity.

The individual speeches substantially differ in degrees of the interaction which is predominantly determined by the field (Halliday 2009) and also by the extent of the utterances. The most numerous signs of interaction occur in speech A, which seems to be logical if we consider its length and the event of the speech. Nonetheless this speech is the most argumentative from the selection, thus allowing more opportunities and bigger space for the audience to express their approval or disapproval. RFK literally stimulates the interaction of the audience during his appearance. First, he amuses them with his wit which is answered by intensive laughter then with argumentation and emotive oration he inspires them to express their viewpoint by applause.

Since the number of interactions between Robert Kennedy and his target audience in speech A is high, I will point out only those moments which appear to be the most significant, either for the content of the particular message or for the vehemence of the reaction.

The sarcastic notes on the two rival universities in (SA par. 2) are answered with hilarity. They do not just entertain the attendees but also contribute a lot to the building of a friendly relationship between RFK and his audience. The same happens when he says:

“…I don't know why you're laughing. I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: "We hope you recover," and the vote was 42 to 40.” (SA par. 3)

By this humorous remark he tries to show the Senators, so himself as well, from less formal perspective in order to bridge the gap between him and the audience. (Even though Robert

Kennedy had a unique understanding and sensitivity for young people, as a Senator from

New York he could not fully avoid being treated to some extent formally by his young audience. Through his self-deprecating humour he tried to get closer to them and to earn their trust.) Whereas through the rest of the speech the interaction between him and the target audience functions only on one level, which is verbal impulse and a subsequent nonverbal reaction of the audience, here Robert Kennedy enters the next level as he reacts to their response saying “…I don't know why you're laughing.” The earlier laughter was evoked by his ironic comments on the “warmth that exists in the senate of the United

States.” RFK, pretending he has meant it literally by expressing surprise over their laughter, takes advantage of the situation to even heighten the punch line and he finishes his thought with an utmost comic, but at the same time absurd story of the votes in the

Senate about the hopes for his recovery from sickness. It is perhaps not surprising that the audience bursts out in immense laughter again. Then he intensifies the humour as he says:

“…I just want you to remember, as you look back upon this day, and when it comes to a question of who you're going to support that it was a Kennedy who got you out of class.” (SA par. 4)

At this point it looks as though he was reading their minds and as I have already indicated under the previous heading, Robert Kennedy proves that he has understanding of student affairs and in this way he wins their favour entirely.

As the topics take on seriousness the immense laughter is replaced by applause and ovations as a sign of approval. The first really intensive ovation comes after Robert

Kennedy talks about the „honest confrontation‟ that is needed in America (SA par. 9-10) and indicates that is one of the reasons he runs for the presidency. Actually this is the first time during the event that he refers to his candidacy and it is received with maximal endorsement, confirmed by the intensity of the ovations.

When he talks about “building a better country”, about changing the “direction of the United States of America” (SA par. 11), or about his belief that they “can work together ” (SA par. 14), that they do not “have to shoot at each other, to beat each other, to curse each other” (SA par. 14) and that they can “do better in the country” (SA par. 14), he elicits applause as a sign of agreement.

After he describes how “young people the best educated, and the best comforted in our history turn from the Peace Corps and public commitment of a few years ago to lives of disengagement and despair many of them turned on with drugs and turned off on America”

(SA par. 13), he sends forth an implicature in form of a rhetorical question saying “[…] none of them here, of course, at Kansas -- right?” (SA par. 13). With a friendly tone of voice he again uses his humour to alleviate the tension, as his words might sound as a direct confrontation. His wit again achieves its goal, yet the audience responds with laughter. On the one hand he expresses that he trusts them, on the other hand he implies that he is aware that not all of them are that immaculate, indirectly pointing at the frivolous sides of a student‟s life.

When he talks about his experience from the Mississippi Delta area, where he has seen starving children (SA par. 15), to stress the paradoxical situation in the country he puts the alarming conditions into contrast with the value of the gross national product of the

United States. As he categorically declares it unacceptable and emphasises the need of a change (SA par. 15) he repeatedly makes his listeners erupt in applause. The same happens when he openly confronts them with the price they have to pay for the gross national product of eight hundred billion Dollars. As he lists the drawbacks of the enormous production potential:

“Our Gross National Product now is over 800 billion dollars a year. But that Gross National Product if we judge the United States of America by that that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and it counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle2 (see p. 103) and Speck's knife3 (see p. 104) and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.” (SA par. 20)

Then, as he continues, he draws contrast between the harmful back-effects induced by the

GNP and the real moral values that it does not stand for:

“Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.” (SA par. 20-21)

What seems most remarkable is the unique sense of combining positively and morally charged words with constant negation and still keeping them sound so smooth and natural.

The way he stimulates their civic pride and suggests that the real American values are not measured in material things he entirely wins the audience‟s appreciation and he is rewarded with applause. For the above thoughts about morality and community values, Robert

Kennedy‟s University of Kansas address is sometimes referred to as “Recapturing

America‟s Moral Vision” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 327)

Robert Kennedy‟s comments on the War in Vietnam were received with enthusiasm at the University of Kansas. At some points the audience reacted even more intensively than when he spoke about the social problems of the country. The clear evidence, that the

50 young people were not less against the war than he was, made him speak about the issue with confidence. Almost every single sentence uttered by him regarding the Vietnam War was met with applauds of approval. Especially those thoughts are appreciated where he points out that they “[…] have made the war and struggle in South Vietnam” (SA par. 24) their war and he firmly declares it unacceptable. Then he directly confronts his audience and assumes their collective responsibility for the policies enforced in Vietnam:

“The commander of the American forces at Ben Tre said we had to destroy that city in order to save it. So 38,000 people were wiped out or made refugees. We here in the United States not just the United States government, not just the commander and forces in South Vietnam, the United States government and every human being that's in this room we are part of that decision and I don't think that we need do that any longer, and I think we should change our policy.” (SA par. 27)

Robert Kennedy expresses his utmost involvement in the issues. He demonstrates it by talking in first person plural. This way he also involves his audience. Although he assigns them responsibility and thus puts them into an unpleasant position, when he says: “I think we should change our policy,” the only reaction of the audience is applause showing their firm agreement.

When RFK delivers the closing part of his speech, the reaction of the attendees shows such affection towards him that it leaves no doubts about who they are going to support. He asks for their help:

“In the difficult five months ahead before the convention in Chicago, I ask for your help and for your assistance. If you believe the United States can do better, if you believe that we should change our course of action, if you believe that we should that -- the United States stands for something here internally as well as elsewhere around the globe, I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months.” (SA par. 40)

He again speaks in first person plural to express unity, equality and most of all his involvement. He does not tell his audience directly: „vote for me and I will…‟ nor does he ask them: „support me‟, rather he treats them as equal partners. He suggests to them, that they are important, that their help is appreciated. He makes them believe that they really have control over the course of future actions as he asks for their “[…] hand over the period of the next five months”.

In speech B the interaction between Robert Kennedy and his target audience is less intensive than in speech A. The reason why it is rather a one-way communication merely lies in the character of the speech and most of all in the speech event. Naturally this address is much less argumentative than speech A, since it is not a proper political campaign speech, but a plea for understanding and compassion. The whole utterance and the whole event are obscured by the grief over the assassination of Martin Luther King. Apart from a couple of short ovations the audience quietly listens to Robert Kennedy‟s calming words.

When he announces the tragic news the audience reacts with a relatively short, but blood-curdling scream then they suddenly go silent. At this point Robert Kennedy also goes silent, not only to give his audience time to deal with the tragic news and to show empathy and respect toward their feelings, but he does so, because he cannot foresee their reaction and he is literally looking for the most appropriate words in his mind. As he notices that the vast majority of them remains quiet and calm he successfully draws their attention back on himself emphatically uttering “Martin Luther King” thus alleviating the slight tension that starts growing due to the long pause. Through the rest of the speech there are three more moments when the audience expresses its appreciation. The first is, when he puts emotionally charged words from a negative semantic field into contrast with words from a positive semantic field to stress what is needed in the United States and he emphasises that 52 all human beings “who still suffer within” the “country, whether they be white or whether they be black” deserve to be treated with “love, and wisdom and compassion.” (SB par. 8)

This way he clearly enforces his attachment to equality between the citizens of the country and unsurprisingly evokes their approval. At certain point the way they express their agreement may sound strange. After RFK finishes his sentence with “[…] whether they be white or whether they be black,” he makes a pause, probably expecting some reaction. First the audience remains silent. Only after three seconds or so they start gradually erupting in applause as though they were vacillating whether it is an appropriate behaviour in the shade of the tragic event. In case of the second moment when the audience express its appreciation for RFK‟s thoughts, again glorifying “justice for all human beings” and equality and unity between black and white people (SB par. 11), this time their applause is much more noticeable than before. Eventually, when Robert Kennedy thanks for their attention to say goodbye this way, they do not hold back their emotions and their affection towards him. They celebrate him with an applause.

The fewest examples of interaction between Robert Kennedy and his target audience can be found in speech C. This address could be characterised from the perspective of its style as the most narrative from the given selection of the speeches. The target audience is in the position of a passive listener through the whole utterance, which is understandable considering the nature of the audience, the speech event and the seriousness of the topics covered by Robert Kennedy. The only moment when they express their appreciation for what they have heard with an intensive applause is at the end of the address.

6.1.3 Open Confrontation of the Target Audience

This section of the subchapter I will dedicate to the examination of the degree of open confrontation of the target audiences by Robert Kennedy in the selected speeches.

Before I dig deeper into the analysis, it seems relevant to clearly delineate what means of confrontation will be examined. Obviously in the case of the analysed material we cannot talk about a face-to-face confrontation, about any confrontation of power or any forms of conflict. The confrontation of the target audience in Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses rather lies in an objective unravelling of the alarming conditions existing in the country. In terms of the RSI (Rhetoric of Social Intervention) model (Opt and Gring 2009) this confrontation functions as an „Attention intervention‟ (Opt and Gring 2009), concretely an „anomaly-featuring communication‟ (Brown 1978, 1982 in Opt and Gring

2009), which “foregrounds the differences and backgrounds the similarities between experience and expectancies.” (Opt and Gring 2009) Robert Kennedy confronts his audience with the real situation within the United States and also abroad to shift their attention to the deviances from the expectancies. RFK‟s assumption is that no human being, not even those with the faintest signs of sensitivity can claim that the situation of the starving children in Mississippi, the violence and disorders and the escalation of military intervention are experiences that meet their expectancies. He builds his argument on this assumption and as he declares in his University of Kansas address, he categorically holds back from benefiting from “hiding the American condition in false hopes or illusions.” (SA par. 11)

In the selection of the core research material this open confrontation appears both in broader and narrower sense. If we look for the signs of confrontation in the selected 54 speeches from a broader perspective, which stands for all utterances that uncover some unacceptable domestic and foreign conditions, then we can state that the vast majority of speech A and C is exorbitantly confrontational. If we look for them from a narrower perspective then we can focus only on those moments when Robert Kennedy directly involves his target audience in a collective responsibility for the unpleasant conditions, outlines an objective picture about their future or confronts them with their own feelings.

Given the fact that this narrower conception more appropriately meets the criteria of a public confrontation I will predominantly focus the following analysis on this reduced selection of utterances.

An appropriate example of touching on the audience‟s conscience is when he talks about the starving children in the Delta area of Mississippi. He draws a realistic picture of them by expressions like “distended stomachs” or “faces are covered with sores from starvation” to stress the seriousness of the situation and to play on the audience‟s feelings.

(SA par. 15) He twice states that he has seen those children to give credibility to his claim, to imply that this is not a fictive story, but the cruel reality that exists “in the United states, with a gross national product of eight hundred billion dollars.” (SA par. 15) He applies contrast to underline the outrageousness and paradoxicality of the situation. Then he involves himself, the target audience and the whole nation in a collective responsibility for the appalling conditions by saying “[…] and we haven‟t developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not, so that their lives are not destroyed.” (SA par. 15) He does not blame this solely on the administration, but rather tells everyone, that every single citizen carries the responsibility for too long ignoring the rising gap between the poor and the rich, between the more developed and less developed areas of the country. 55

The next instant of arousing the emotions of his audience by involving them in the issue occurs when Robert Kennedy talks about his own experience in the black ghettoes.

He again highlights that he has seen these people with his own eyes. Similarly as in case of the starving children, RFK repeatedly assigns collective responsibility for hollow promises to black people of the ghetto about “[…] equality and justice, as they sit in the same decaying schools and huddled in the same filthy rooms, without heat, warding off the cold and warding off the rats.” (SA par. 19) He again describes the conditions very realistically to persuade the target audience about the severity of the situation through their imagination.

Then he calls upon their belief in American values like the bond of “a common concern for each other” and makes it a prerequisite for their joint engagement in ending “the disgrace of this other America.” (SA par. 19)

Another remarkable moment of confrontation occurs in the address when Robert

Kennedy talks about the loss of “personal excellence and community values” due to “mere accumulation of material things.” (SA par. 20) He underlines the devastating side effects as a result of the immense production and consumption reflected by the Gross National

Product of eight hundred billion dollars a year. By listing these drawbacks he implicitly suggests that even though the vast majority of the citizens show indifference to these problems, everybody is affected by them and every individual carries the burden of responsibility for them. Then he calls for Jefferson‟s promise: “[…] we, here in this country, would be the best hope of mankind.” (SA par. 22) As he moves on with the speech, he refers to the war in Vietnam and thus evokes doubts in the hearts of the audience whether they, as a country, “still hold a decent respect for the opinions of mankind and whether the opinion maintained a descent respect for them.” (SA par. 22) To emphasise community objectives over individual goals he draws the example of ancient Athens of 56 which „sympathy‟, „support‟ and „security‟ were forfeited “in the single-minded pursuit of”

(SA par. 22) their own goals and objectives, which all of us know, lead to the entire loss of their position and prestige within the ancient Greek Empire.

Later, when he speaks about the war in Vietnam, he states some concrete facts about the war and he not just implicitly suggests, but takes on and directly assigns collective responsibility for the happenings. Robert Kennedy recalls the words of the commander of the American forces at Ben Tre: “[…] we had to destroy that city in order to save it.” (SA par. 27) He even stresses the seriousness and the credibility of the event by some factual information: “So 38000 people were wiped out or made refugees.” (SA par. 27) Then he straightforwardly makes everybody part of that decision and thus responsible for the events.

“We here in the United States not just the United States government, not just the commander and forces in South Vietnam, the United States government and every human being that's in this room we are part of that decision […]” (SA par. 27)

RFK makes his target audience part of the decision with such a tragic resolution to touch on their conscience, to imply that their votes in the last elections, their inattention towards the progress of the war and their passivity were also factors that lead to the current situation.

Nonetheless, he also implies that in the hearts of the people who are directly affected by such acts, their hatred grows not only towards the American Forces or towards the

Government, but towards the whole American nation, and that is why every citizen carries the burden of responsibility.

The Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King show completely different examples of open confrontation of the target audience than the University of

Kansas address. Naturally, this speech, affected by the tragic event of the assassination, gives no space for any confrontation in forms of collective responsibility. In this case RFK

57 confronts the target audience with their own feelings, with King‟s legacy and with visions of the future.

The instance when he confronts his audience with their own feelings is at the same time a delineation of two possible directions for them.

“For those of you who are black considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.” (SB par. 3)

Here Robert Kennedy shows empathy and understanding of their feelings, as though he was implying that their feelings are well justified and understandable. Then he suggests that if they, as a country, let themselves be absorbed by these feelings it would lead to even

“greater polarization – black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another,” (SB par. 4) insinuating this direction as the wrong direction.

He puts it into contrast with Martin Luther King‟s legacy as the right direction which is replacing violence “with an effort to understand, compassion and love.” (SB par. 4) He confronts his audience with King‟s message to shift their attitudes and to make them believe that any violent act from their side may dishonour Martin Luther King‟s life, death and legacy.

Also in this speech he proves that he treats his audience with honesty and candour.

He does not want to raise false illusions in their hearts about the end of violence. Instead of making any empty promises that he personally will stop the disorders, as many politicians do when they try to show themselves in a pose of a hero, Robert Kennedy confronts his audience with an objective vision of the future.

“We've had difficult times in the past, but we and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.” (SB par. 10)

With the above thoughts he suggests, that stopping the violence and disorder cannot be achieved one day to another, but is a longer process, and is not something that any individual is able to achieve alone. Therefore, with his next sentence he implies that it can be accomplished only through collective effort.

“But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.” (SB par. 11)

He urges his audience to join the „vast majority‟, those who “want to live together” in peace, because the higher are the numbers of these people, the bigger are the chances for ending the violence and lawlessness.

The Cleveland City Club speech contains instants of confrontation that are meant to address the audience‟s conscience similarly as in case of the University of Kansas speech. We can treat this address as an open criticism of the American society, for Robert

Kennedy confronts his target audience with their individual and collective faults. As usual he cannot detach himself from the issues. He consistently talks to the attendees in first person plural when confronting them.

He criticises the society for being indifferent to the “rising level of violence,” that they uncaringly “accept civilian slaughters in far off lands.” (SC par. 5) He goes even further when he declares that they not just accept the violence by their passivity, but they actively endorse it as he declares the following:

“We glorify killing on movie and television screens and we call it entertainment. We make it easier for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition that they desire.” (SC par. 5)

Robert Kennedy does all of this to make his audience explore the regions of their own morals. He forces them out of their complacency to draw their attention to the seriousness of the situation in the United States and to persuade them through their conscience about the alarming need for action.

Later he continues his criticism, but this time with a firm detachment, categorically implying that what they are going to hear by no means applies to him. He criticises the demagogies that pit the citizens against each other:

“For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your home or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies -- to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and to be mastered.” (SC par. 8)

Robert Kennedy uncovers the reasons that predominantly lead to the great divisions between the citizens of the country. He applies personal deixis „you‟ to stress that these reasons concern them as well, thus again enforces his audience to explore the regions of their own faults and ethic. Just a couple sentences later he very appropriately summarizes, what was his intention with his message, and that is to make them search “in their own midst and in their own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of their existence.” (SC par. 10)

The following lines will endorse the objective comprehension of the above analysis.

Allen and Guthman in their book RFK: Collected Speeches (1993) provide a brief, but pertinent description of Robert Kennedy‟s confrontational manners. In their words: “[…] no candidate in modern memory so often allowed the intensity of his moral outrage to provoke him into open confrontations with listeners whose support he had come to solicit.

From the very beginning of his public career, Kennedy made a point to venture into potentially hostile territory. During the 1968 campaign, he took this tendency further, with direct, impromptu encounters aimed at forcing his audiences out of their complacency. No longer would he merely engage them in a dialogue about broader societal issues; he now sought to force his listeners to examine their personal lives and attitudes, and he made little allowance for political calculation or bruised feelings.” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen

1993:341)

6.2 Degrees of Subjectivity

This subchapter will be dedicated to the analysis of the degrees of subjectivity in

Robert F. Kennedy‟s selected 1968 presidential election campaign speeches. Before I move on to the examination of the concrete instances of subjectivity within Robert Kennedy‟s utterances it would be apt to delineate how I will approach the phenomena in the given context.

David R. Hall in his essay on Objectivity, Subjectivity and Competing Models of

Research (2011) claims that “[…] all research is subjective, no matter what paradigm is used.” If we take into consideration that every research is significantly predetermined by the researcher‟s selection of the topic and the research material, by his or her formulation of the hypotheses, application of the research criteria and methodology etc., we must admit that although being perhaps too categorical Hall‟s declaration appears relevant. I refer to

Hall‟s statement, because during the evaluation of the instances of subjectivity in the core research material, I often found myself in a situation when the boundaries between the

61 objective and subjective aspects of particular utterance are not apparent. In these cases I had to predominantly rely on my own assumptions and thus becoming obliged to a certain degree of subjectivity.

We can interpret the degrees of objectivity and subjectivity in a single utterance also as a balance between the intellectual and emotional aspects. However if we approach

Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses this way, it may result in certain confusion, since even his most rational argumentations are emotionally charged. Therefore it seems to be appropriate to introduce such criteria that allow us to draw a more transparent line between the objective and subjective aspects of his utterances. For this reason I decided to approach the issue more pragmatically and to build up the criteria for identifying the objective and subjective aspects of the addresses on the unequivocal definitions of the terms „objective‟ and „subjective.‟ The Macmillan English Dictionary (Bloomsburry Publishing Plc 2002) defines the adjective „objective‟ as something that is “based only on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or beliefs” or something that is “real and not existing only in someone‟s mind.” I have mentioned above that Robert Kennedy‟s most intellectual thoughts are also notably emotional and thus to some extent influenced by his personal feelings, thus I will rather adhere to the second definition. I must underline that very few instances of absolute objectivity exist in the selected addresses. The same dictionary defines the adjective „subjective‟ as something that is “based on your own feelings and ideas and not on facts.” On the basis of the above definitions, I will attempt to categorise particular parts of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances that refer to some facts or real conditions existing out of his own conceptions under objective aspects and thoughts that reflect his personal beliefs and opinions under subjective aspects. Albeit I must note that in most of the cases the features of RFK‟s particular utterances do not allow for such strict 62 categorisation. For example when he refers to William Allen White in his University of

Kansas address, at first he appears to be objective. He lists some facts like the “[…]great affection the university has for him[…]” that “[…]he is an honoured man today[…]” although “[…]when he lived and wrote, he was reviled as an extremist and worse.” (SA par. 9) All these claims are obviously based on facts however the thoughts that follow could be characterised as RFK‟s own interpretation of White‟s work and thus being subjective. He describes why White was reviled as an extremist:

“For he spoke he spoke as he believed. He did not conceal his concern in comforting words. He did not delude his readers or himself with false hopes and with illusions.” (SA par. 9)

Here RFK becomes subjective in the way he stresses those features of the writer‟s work that most support the parallel that he wants to draw between White and himself. This way he creates the path for his main idea: „the spirit of honest confrontation‟ (SA par. 9) that he is planning to assert. Hereby I would like to refer to D.C. Phillips‟ work, Subjectivity and

Objectivity: An Objective Inquiry, in which he claims that “if the observer‟s prior theoretical commitments do, indeed, determine what he or she sees as being the facts of a situation, then subjectivity would seem to reign supreme.” (Phillips 1990: 25) In terms of the above example, Robert Kennedy‟s intention to give credibility to his idea determines what he sees as the facts of White‟s work. This example perhaps adequately demonstrates how the objective and subjective aspects in Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses sometimes overlap.

Based on the fact, that public speeches and above all, political speeches in most of the cases are intended to demonstrate any individual‟s own beliefs and opinions or any party‟s agenda, Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses naturally show dominance of the

63 subjective aspects over the objective ones. Albeit Robert Kennedy‟s speeches are free of partisan agendas they still are emotive demonstrations of his own beliefs, opinions and attitudes. This is the reason why they show a higher degree of subjectivity.

Those instances, where the objective aspect is most supported by factual evidence and least affected by RFK‟s emotionalism, are present in speech A, when he talks about the war in Vietnam and about the loss of the prestige of the country. Specifically, when he refers to the statement of the commander of the American forces at Ben Tre that they “[…] had to destroy the city in order to save it” and as a result “38 000 people were wiped out or made refugees.” (SA par. 27) RFK includes a specific numerical data, a deixis of quantity, to stress the relevance and credibility of the information and above all the seriousness of the act. Then he employs a concrete date, a time deixis, to back up the accuracy of his words when he talks about the President‟s misjudgement about the nearness of the military victory in Vietnam and about his message from February 8th 1967 asking Ho Chi Minh “[…] for their unconditional surrender.” (SA par. 29) When he describes the conditions as the

President of the United States goes to the meeting of OAS (Organisation of American

States) at Montevideo and he “[…]has to stay in a military base at Montevideo, with

American ships out at the sea and American helicopters overhead in order to ensure that he‟s protected,” (SA par. 37) he employs a deixis of place to confirm the reliability of the information.

The most frequently cited part of the speech A, when Robert Kennedy evaluates the

Gross National Product from a different perspective than the financial one, also demonstrates an example when the objective and subjective aspects overlap. (SA par. 20-

21) If we judge this part of the speech only by the facts that Robert Kennedy lists, like the indirect negative results of the Gross National Product or the moral values that the GNP 64 fails to allow for, then we may declare it to be partly objective. However, if we take into consideration that these facts reflect also Robert Kennedy‟s own judgement of rights and wrongs and his own system of values, then we must assign to it a certain degree of subjectivity. Especially to the second part of the utterance where he lists the real community values like „health of our children‟, „beauty of our poetry‟, „strength of our marriages‟ or „devotion to our country‟. (SA par. 20-21)

Obviously the most subjective parts of speech A are those where Robert Kennedy stresses the personal deixis „I‟ to emphasise his personal involvement. These are the instances where he gives reasons for running for the presidency or resolutely expresses his opinion. Naturally these utterances include or start with expressions like „I think that […]‟ and „I do not think that […]‟ or „I want […]‟ and „I do not want […]‟ or „I do not believe that […]‟.

“I want to make it clear that if the government of Saigon, feels Khe Sanh or Que Son and the area in the demilitarized zone are so important, if Khe San is so important to the government of Saigon, I want to see those American marines out of there and South Vietnamese troops in there. I want to have an explanation as to why American boys killed two weeks ago in South Vietnam, were three times as -- more than three times as many, as the soldiers of South Vietnam. I want to understand why the casualties and the deaths over the period of the last two weeks at the height of the fighting should be so heavily American casualties, as compared to the South Vietnamese.” (SA par. 32-33)

As the above excerpt shows Robert Kennedy vehemently asserts his own demands and for this reason this part of his address reflect the subjective aspect of his utterance similarly as the example below which demonstrates his subjective opinion and belief.

“I think we have to make the effort to help them. I think that we have to make the effort to fight, but I don't think we should have to carry the whole burden of that war. I think the South Vietnamese should.” (SA par. 34)

Speech B, although being emotive also contains some relatively objective utterances. Naturally the most objective part is that one, when RFK announces the assassination of Martin Luther King. This time he also tries to back up the credibility of his statement by applying a deixis of place, which is Memphis, Tennessee. The next instance of objectivity occurs when Robert Kennedy confronts his listeners with the evidence “[…] that there were white people who were responsible.” (SB par. 3)

Evidently, also in speech B the objective and subjective aspects overlap to some extent. For example right at the beginning of the address when Robert Kennedy says:

“Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort.” (SB par. 3) Obviously RFK‟s declaration is partly objective, because it reflects the truth, however as this is his own interpretation of

King‟s legacy it appears subjective. A similar situation occurs when in the closing part of his speech he utters the following statements: “It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it‟s not the end of disorder.” (SB par. 10) Despite the fact that RFK does not show any tentativeness by including expressions like „perhaps‟ or „probably‟ and his statement sounds firm and factual, at the moment of its utterance it is rather his own assumption and thus appears to be subjective. However, if we consider that two months later he himself lay on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel dying, then we can treat his statement as objective.

Probably the most subjective part of speech B is that one, when Robert Kennedy exposes his own feelings and thus shows understanding and deep empathy towards the target audience.

“For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only

say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.” (SB par. 5)

He creates a very intimate close atmosphere by exposing his own feelings and sharing their common grief.

Another instance of his subjectivity occurs when Robert Kennedy tries to convince the target audience to act according to his own will. He says: “So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country[…]” (SB par. 9) He acts as a leader who wants to lead his people towards the right direction.

Right at the beginning of speech C, when Robert Kennedy says: “It‟s not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown” (SC par. 2) he appears to be objective, albeit the subjective aspect still dominates in the Cleveland City Club address as it is lyrical and emotive. In most of the cases these two aspects overlap also in speech C, however I must make it clear that by no means can we talk about absolute objectivity. This situation emerges because RFK lists a lot of facts which the vast majority of people would consider truths, but his own emotions and assumptions are still more or less attached to them or vice versa, his opinions and assumptions are backed up with facts.

If we consider that violence on movies and television do not only exist in RFK‟s head, but that is reality, as well as the inadequate policies existing in America that regulate possession of weapons, then these statements seem to be objective. However if we notice

67 that he is talking in the first person plural constantly, thus showing personal involvement and that these statements are still to some extent his own judgements, then they appear to be subjective. The same applies for the part where he talks about the „violence of institutions‟. (SC par. 7)

Another example when RFK‟s subjective opinion is asserted occurs in the closing part of the speech where he claims that “[…] our children‟s future cannot be built on the misfortune of another‟s[…]” (SC par. 11) or when he states that “[…]those who live with us are our brothers[…]” (SC par. 13) Although these lines mostly reflect Robert

Kennedy‟s beliefs and convictions they still build upon generally acknowledged moral and humanistic values.

Albeit the subjective aspects dominate in all of the selected speeches by Robert

Kennedy, the fact that they are free from partisan agendas and demagogies and they reflect a much higher degree of objectivity as expected from a public speech, they still support my assumption that Robert Kennedy – as formulated by Fish (1989) – was “a seeker for truth and an objective observer of the way things are.” (Fish 1989 cited in Richards 2008:6-7)

Even though he did not repress his emotions and beliefs he managed to keep his commitment not to hide the real conditions in „false hopes and illusions‟.

6.3 Degrees of Personal Involvement of the Speaker

In this subchapter I will analyse the degrees of Robert Kennedy‟s personal involvement in the issues rendered in his selected addresses. If we judge his personal involvement by the number of pronominal references „I‟ and „we‟, then we can declare that

68 he expresses personal involvement through the majority of all the selected speeches. If we consider the occurrence of these pronominal references in the selected speeches, then we can state that „I‟ immensely dominates in speech A, what is understandable as this is the address where RFK asserts his beliefs and opinion most frequently. In speech B the occurrence of „I‟ and „we‟ is balanced and in speech C prevails „we‟ since in most of the cases RFK engages also himself in the collective responsibility which he assigns. In the following analysis I will predominantly focus on those issues where Robert Kennedy, not just expresses his involvement by talking in the first person, but he is either physically involved in them or directly related to them, or he asserts his own will. If we judge his involvement in the selected addresses by the above criteria, then we can assume speech A to be the most personal as it includes several instances that meet either of these criteria.

Right at the introductory part of speech A emerge some examples of Robert Kennedy‟s physical involvement in the issue. For example when he applies irony to build a friendly and humorous atmosphere and he says: “I've come because I came from Kansas State and they want to send their love to all of you” (SA par. 2) or when he tells a story from his

Senate life about the votes for his recovery:

“I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: "We hope you recover," and the vote was 42 to 40.” (SA par. 3)

Robert Kennedy tells this humorous story to build a friendly relationship with his listeners.

Whether it is true or not, his statement not just entertains the target audience, but above all creates a relaxed personal atmosphere as it shows RFK in an ordinary situation from his everyday life. His prior intention with this message is to loosen the degree of formality that

69 inescapably emerges from his social status as the Senator of New York State and by this way to get closer to his audience.

Robert Kennedy shows personal involvement to draw his target audience‟s attention to his personal ties to acknowledged representatives of the state of Kansas when he expresses how proud he is to “[…] be associated with […]” (SA par. 5) Senator Pierson, the Senator of Kansas, or when he talks about his valued cooperation with Governor

Docking‟s father:

“And I'm happy to be here with an old friend, Governor Docking. I don't think there was anyone that was more committed to President Kennedy and made more of an effort under the most adverse circumstances and with the most difficult situation than his father, who was Governor of the State of Kansas -- nobody I worked with more closely, myself, when I was in Los Angeles. We weren't 100 percent successful, but that was a relationship that I will always value [...]” (SA par. 6)

Robert Kennedy shares his own feelings with the listeners as he sends forth a positively charged impulse towards them in the form of “I'm happy to be here with an old friend,

Governor Docking.” He emphasises the value of his relationship with Governor Docking senior to show respect for an acknowledged Kansan and to substantiate his relations to

Kansas. He stresses that they worked closely together to suggest that it was a serious collaboration. RFK attempts to earn the audience‟s trust with this statement. He implies that if he had the Governor‟s confidence, who had been a highly respected state executive, then they could trust him as well.

Probably the most appropriate example of RFK‟s physical involvement in the issue occurs when he shares his own experience from the Mississippi Delta, from the black ghettoes or from the reservations of the Native Americans.

“But I have seen these other Americans. I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been 70

so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi, here in the United States, with a gross national product of 800 billion dollars -- I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not -- so that their lives are not destroyed.” (SA par. 15)

Robert Kennedy repeats “I have seen [...]” four times to stress that he is talking about the reality that exists in some areas of the United States not about fictions. He speaks from his own experience during his Senate years as he was visiting some less developed places of the country to check the progress of the War on Poverty4 (see p. 104). He expresses his own dismay when he puts into contrast the situation of the starving children with the value of the gross national product of the country. To underline the depth of the situation he applies rhetorical emphasis in forms of „starving‟, „crippled‟ and „destroyed.‟

He draws a realistic picture of the conditions by expressions like „distended stomachs‟ or

„faces covered with sores‟.

RFK feels himself responsible for the situation and assigns collective responsibility to the whole nation as he remarks “[…] and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, […].” With his statement he not only accuses the government, but the whole society of being unconcerned. It is Robert Kennedy‟s traumatic experience that makes this part of the speech most affected by his personal involvement.

Another example when Robert Kennedy speaks from his experience occurs when he refers to the high rate of suicides amongst people of the Native American reservations. He again starts his statement with “I have seen […]” (SA par. 16) to underline that he has visited theses places and he was a witness to the conditions and they do not exist only in his

71 mind. Later when he mentions the unemployed miners of Appalachia he gets even more involved.

“I run for the presidency because I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity, but they cannot, for the mines are closed and their jobs are gone and no one -- neither industry, nor labor, nor government -- has cared enough to help.” (SA par. 18)

Robert Kennedy gets even more personally involved as he asserts that he is running for the presidency because he was moved by his own experience of the conditions of the

Appalachian mine workers. He implicitly suggests that he is running for the presidency in order to make changes. He draws contrast between his own endeavour and the administration‟s indifference to highlight his involvement in the issue. RFK accomplishes the series of arguments based on his own experience by describing the situation in the black ghettoes. Similarly as in the previous cases he stresses that he has been a witness to the conditions he is talking about.

“I have seen the people of the black ghetto, listening to ever greater promises of equality and of justice, as they sit in the same decaying schools and huddled in the same filthy rooms, without heat, warding off the cold and warding off the rats.” (SA par. 19)

Robert Kennedy again attempts to draw a realistic picture of the conditions in the black ghettoes by including expressions like „decaying‟ or „filthy‟.

Another example when RFK shows his personal involvement occurs at the end of speech A when he directly asks the target audience for their help.

“So I come here to Kansas to ask for your help. In the difficult five months ahead before the convention in Chicago, I ask for your help and for your assistance. If you believe the United States can do better, if you believe that we should change our course of action […]. […] I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months.” (SA par. 40)

As Robert Kennedy asks for help and assistance he shows himself in a subordinate position to some extent and at the same time he assigns his audience an important role of having the potential to change the course of actions in the country.

There is an appropriate instance of RFK‟s physical involvement in the issue in speech B at the moment when he exposes his own feelings in order to show empathy towards the target audience.

“For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.” (SB par. 5-6)

Robert Kennedy points out his equality with the target audience to earn their trust. He establishes an intimate bond between himself and the audience as he says, “I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling.” Then he refers to his brother‟s assassination, but he does not say „my brother‟, instead he stresses that “I had a member of my family killed

[…].” As though he was implying that his grief is bigger than theirs, for they have lost their political leader, but he has lost a member of his family, so his ties to the person lost are stronger. He exaggerates his own grief, because he intends to serve as a model for his listeners. RFK suggests to the black members of the audience that although he has lost a member of his family and his grief is even bigger than theirs, he is ready to become reconciled to the reality and he invites them to follow him in his direction as he says: “We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.” Robert Kennedy attempts to conciliate his audience through his own personal trauma and this is what makes him physically involved in the issue.

An instance of Robert Kennedy‟s physical involvement occurs right at the beginning of speech C.

“I have saved this one opportunity -- my only event of today -- to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.” (SC par. 1)

As I have already mentioned in the subchapter dedicated to the ways of addressing the target audience, RFK emphasises that this speech is his only event that day to imply that he is distressed by the tragic event from the day before [Martin Luther King‟s assassination], but at the same time to also suggest to the audience that he respects them so much that despite his grief he decided to keep his address. King‟s assassination made Robert Kennedy relive his brother‟s death. The way he indicates that he has cancelled his other appearances exposes his sorrow at the tragic event and demonstrates his personal involvement.

There are several instances in speech A when RFK expresses his own will or demonstrates his beliefs. As he refers to William Allen White‟s legacy he creates the path for the “spirit of honest confrontation” (SA par. 9) which he is going to assert through the rest of the address.

“This spirit of honest confrontation is what America needs today. It has been missing all too often in the recent years and it is one of the reasons that I run for President of the United States. For we as a people are strong enough; we are brave enough to be told the truth of where we stand. And this country needs honesty and candor in its political life and from the President of the United States. But I don't want to run for the presidency I don't want America to make the critical choice of direction and leadership this year without confronting that truth. I don't want to win support of votes by hiding the American condition in false hopes or illusions. I want us to find out the promise of the future, what we can accomplish here in the United States, what this country does stand for and what is expected of us in the years ahead. And I also want us to know and examine where we've gone wrong. And I want all of us, young and old, to have a chance to build a better country and change the direction of the United States of America.” (SA par. 9-11)

Robert Kennedy - although indirectly - but criticises the administration for disguising the real conditions in the country. He makes it a reason for his candidacy to expose these conditions and categorically detaches himself from hiding them in “false hopes and illusions.” RFK demonstrates his moral obligation to treat his audience with honesty in order to justify his confronting words that may follow and nevertheless to assert his trustworthiness.

When it comes to the war in Vietnam in speech A, Robert Kennedy even more frequently asserts his own will and opinion than before.

“I do not want, and I do believe that most Americans do not want, to sell out America's interest to simply withdraw -- to raise the white flag of surrender in Vietnam -- that would be unacceptable to us as a people, and unacceptable to us as a country. But I am concerned about the course of action that we are presently following in South Vietnam. I am concerned about the fact that this has been made America's war.” (SA par. 23-24)

Robert Kennedy wants to make it clear to his audience right at the beginning of the topic that he excludes any forms of surrender as he twice declares it unacceptable. He suggests to them that his criticism of the war by no means enforces any unconditional and immediate withdrawal. Then he uncovers his own feelings about the progress of the war and gets even more involved as he twice stresses that he is concerned that it “[…] has been made

America's war.” As he moves on with the topic he becomes even more engaged in it, his utterance becomes more emotive and categorical.

“And I want to make it clear that if the government of Saigon, feels Khe Sanh or Que Son and the area in the demilitarized zone are so important, if Khe San is so important to the government of Saigon, I want to see those American marines out of there and South Vietnamese troops in there. I want to have an explanation as to why American boys killed two weeks ago in South Vietnam, were three times as many -- more than three times as many, as the soldiers of South Vietnam. I want to understand why the casualties and the deaths over the period of the last two weeks at the height of the fighting should be so heavily American casualties, as compared to the South 75

Vietnamese. This is their war. I think we have to make the effort to help them. I think that we have to make the effort to fight, but I don't think we should have to carry the whole burden of that war. I think the South Vietnamese should. And if I am elected President of the United States, with help, with your help, these are the kinds of policies that I'm going to put into operation.” (SA par. 32-35)

Robert Kennedy lists his own demands. He repeats „I want‟ four times to draw his audience‟s attention to the issues he requires to be resolved. He expresses his own consternation over the the situation that more American soldiers die in the war in Vietnam than South Vietnamese in order to arouse the audience‟s emotions. Then he expresses his opinion about the right direction that should be followed in South Vietnam, which is to let the South Vietnamese carry the bigger part of the burden of the war. This way he also introduces what policies he would enforce if he was elected President of the United States and becomes again personally involved in the issue. RFK also implies to the audience that these changes are in their hands as he says: “And if I am elected President of the United

States, with help, with your help, […]” and this way he indirectly asks for their support.

Robert Kennedy expresses his own desire for reconciliation in speech B as he asks his listeners to return to their homes in peace.

“So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King yeah, it's true but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.” (SB par. 9)

This is the moment of the speech when RFK appears as though he was taking over the position of the African-American‟s spiritual leader. He attempts to calm down his audience through their faith. (The people of the black ghettoes were deeply religious.) He evokes in their hearts a feeling of empathy towards Martin Luther King‟s family and at the same time he reminds them of King‟s legacy. Then he also reminds them of his own words as he 76 spoke about the things they need in the United States, about “[…]love, wisdom and compassion toward one another.” (SB par. 8) Robert Kennedy becomes involved, because he tries to persuade his audience through his own belief in understanding and compassion.

He becomes involved as he appears like their leader when he asks his audience to act according to his own will.

Robert Kennedy‟s personal involvement in the issues is not so apparent in speech

C. It is expressed through his engagement in collective responsibilities. Through the most of the speech he talks in the first person plural, but his personal involvement is not as deep as in speech A or B.

In addition to the introductory part, which I have already described in this subchapter, RFK becomes most involved personally in speech C when he asserts his own opinion about what they should accomplish together as a nation.

“Yet we know what we must do, and that is to achieve true justice among all of our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence. We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions, the false distinctions among men, and learn to find our own advancement in search for the advancement of all. We must admit to ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortune of another's. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or by revenge.” (SC par. 10-11)

Robert Kennedy engages himself and his audience in a collective obligation as he repeats

„we must‟ four times. It is a moral obligation that at the same time reflects his own beliefs and his own opinion about what should be done to end the violence in the country.

Although indirectly, but RFK demonstrates his own commitment to equality, to achieve justice for all citizens of the country.

The above analysis proves what I maintained at the beginning of this subchapter, that Robert Kennedy shows personal involvement in all of his selected speeches. His personal involvement however has different forms and degrees in the particular addresses.

It is most apparent in speech A where he often becomes even physically involved in certain issues and he frequently demonstrates his own beliefs and opinion. This is the speech which contains the most instances of the pronominal reference „I‟. In speech B Robert Kennedy expresses his personal involvement through empathy towards the target audience. He tries to build a personal atmosphere between him and them to win their trust. Through the whole address he shows understanding, respect and equality towards his listeners. In speech C, although his words are emotionally charged, his personal involvement is achieved mostly through his engagement in the collective responsibility that he assigns. He does not enforce his will or opinion, just presents the facts that lead to or directly provoke the violence in the country and makes the whole nation responsible for them. His personal involvement is reflected by his own interpretation of the situation and his own proposals of resolution.

6.4 Means of Persuasion

The following subchapter will be dedicated to the analysis of the means of persuasion applied by Robert Kennedy in his selected public addresses. I would like to build the analysis on definitions adopted from classical rhetoric. Aristotle in his work

Rhetoric “identifies three means of persuasion or proof: logos, or rational argument; ethos, the speaker‟s character, particularly his „trustworthiness‟; and pathos, the emotions aroused in an audience.” (Richards, 2008: 33) Based on Aristotle‟s terms I will further refer to the

78 means of persuasion in the analysis as: persuasion through character, persuasion through argument and persuasion through emotions. Within the analysis of Robert

Kennedy‟s persuasive strategy through his character I will focus on his sense of humour, references to his life experiences and references to certain acknowledged public figures, where the latter is predominantly applied by him in order to establish the credibility of his utterance and the former two aspects to build a trustworthy and friendly relationship with his target audiences. Within the analysis of his persuasive strategy through argument I will distinguish between two types of argumentations, one backed up by facts and evidence and the other based on RFK‟s own reasoning. Within the analysis of Robert Kennedy‟s persuasive strategy through emotions I will examine two situations: when RFK arouses individual‟s emotions in the target audience and when he arouses emotions through asserting community values or moral values.

Even though I have delineated a relatively fixed scheme for the following analysis, I must admit that the complexity of Robert Kennedy‟s persuasive strategies does not allow any strict categorisations. If we do not dissect RFK‟s addresses into single sentences – which would not make any sense – but we treat them as complex sets of units of individual thoughts and ideas, then we must recognise that the above described persuasive strategies in most of the cases overlap. For this reason in certain parts of Robert Kennedy‟s utterance two or in some cases all the three means of persuasion are applied, thus leading to subjective judgements about which one of these persuasive strategies dominates the given expression. As a consequence I will classify the expressions, where the means of persuasion overlap, under the categories of persuasion by character, by argument or by emotions based on my own judgement of the dominant strategy within the examined part of the utterance. If more means of persuasion overlap, although classified under one of the 79 above mentioned categories based on the dominant strategy, I will attempt to demonstrate why the selected part of the utterance also reflects other subordinate persuasive strategy or strategies.

An appropriate example of Robert Kennedy‟s persuasive strategy through his own character occurs right at the beginning of speech A. RFK applies humour to win the target audience‟s favour. He builds a jocular atmosphere through irony and sarcasm:

“I'm really not here to make a speech. I've come because I came from Kansas State and they want to send their love to all of you. They did. That's all they talk about over there, how much they love you. Actually, I want to establish the fact that I am not an alumnus of Villanova. I'm very pleased and very touched, as my wife is, at your warm reception here. I think of my colleagues in the United States Senate, and I think of my friends there, and I think of the warmth that exists in the Senate of the United States I don't know why you're laughing.” (SA par. 2-3)

Robert Kennedy repeats twice that the students of Kansas State University have affection for the University of Kansas students in order to boost the irony in his utterance, as the two universities are rivals. RFK suggests this way to his audience that he knows about the rivalry between the two universities and he takes advantage from the situation to create a friendly and loose atmosphere through sarcastic humour.

Jenny Thomas in her book Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to

Pragmatics (1995) in reference to Austin (1960) describes the force of utterances through the “three – fold distinction: Locution, the actual words uttered; Illocution, the force or intention behind the words; Perlocution, the effect of the illocution on the hearer;”

(Thomas, 1995: 49) I have chosen for the above terms in order to explain RFK‟s statement:

“I want to establish the fact that I am not an alumnus of Villanova.” The illocution of the given statement is hidden in the implicature applied by Robert Kennedy, which is to declare that he does not have a reason for any resentment against the University of Kansas students 80 for their team has defeated the former champion, the University of Villanova in a college basketball competition. The real intention, the locution behind RFK‟s words is to pay them a compliment for their result. This way he exerts the perlocutionary force of the statement as he wins the audience‟s favour and gets closer to them.

As a subordinate strategy of the paragraph is applied persuasion through emotions as RFK expresses how moved he is by the audience‟s reception. He uses emotionally charged words like „pleased‟ and ‟touched‟ and also refers to his wife‟s feelings to emphasise the emotiveness of the utterance. This way he strengthens his positive relationship with the target audience.

Robert Kennedy repeatedly applies an implicature when he talks about the “warmth that exists in the Senate of the United States.” Evidently he means the remark in a figurative sense in order to create the path for his next utterance embellished with self- deprecating humour in combination with irony to win the audience‟s affection:

“I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: "We hope you recover," and the vote was 42 to 40. And then they took a poll in one of the financial magazines of five hundred of the largest businessmen in the United States, to ask them, what political leader they most admired, who they wanted to see President of the United States. And I received one vote and I understand they're looking for him.” (SA par. 3-4)

Robert Kennedy builds up an identity of a young Senator with a good sense of humour, who understands young people, who is open-minded and is able to accept criticisms of his character or his unpopularity among certain political figures wittily and with detachment.

Here Robert Kennedy enforces two levels of his identity in Hecht‟s (1993) terms: his

„personal identity‟ or self-conception and his „enacted identity‟, which is the way “identity is expressed in language and communication.” (Hecht in Joseph 2004:80-1)

The following examples will demonstrate RFK‟s persuasive strategy through his character in forms of referring to acknowledged public representatives.

As I have mentioned in the previous subchapters Robert Kennedy refers to his ties to respected representatives of Kansas in order to prove to his audience that he is not a complete alien that he has or has had some interest in or relation to their State. He emphasises that he worked closely with the Governor of Kansas in order to imply that it was a relationship based on mutual trust and thus to appear trustworthy in front of his audience. He also mentions President Kennedy twice, first to express his respect for

Governor Docking for his commitment to President Kennedy, then to draw on President

Kennedy‟s authority in order to give weight to his relationship with Governor Docking.

Another example of referring to acknowledged public figures occurs when Robert

Kennedy pays tribute to William Allen White.

“[…] William Allen White. And I know what great affection this university has for him. He is an honored man today, here on your campus and around the rest of the nation. But when he lived and wrote, he was reviled as an extremist and worse. For he spoke he spoke as he believed. He did not conceal his concern in comforting words. He did not delude his readers or himself with false hopes and with illusions. This spirit of honest confrontation is what America needs today. It has been missing all too often in the recent years and it is one of the reasons that I run for President of the United States.” (SA par. 9)

Robert Kennedy not just refers to and feels high esteem for White, but he also identifies himself with White‟s legacy and character. He establishes the credibility of his utterance and strengthens his own trustworthiness by underlining that he is running for the presidency in order to enforce the “spirit of honest confrontation.”

At the end of speech A Robert Kennedy also tries to convince the target audience mostly through his own character, although his utterance is argumentative as well.

“So I come here to Kansas to ask for your help. In the difficult five months ahead before the convention in Chicago, I ask for your help and for your assistance. If you believe the United States can do better, if you believe that we should change our course of action, if you believe that we should -- that the United States stands for something here internally as well as elsewhere around the globe, I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months.” (SA par. 40)

RFK applies persuasion through character in the way he poses himself into the role of a representative of a direction towards a better future. He does not ask directly for votes, but for the audience‟s help and assistance. Robert Kennedy implies to his listeners that he stands for a better United States, he stands for a change for better life and as he says “[…] I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months,” he makes them believe that they really have control over their future. In addition to his character, Robert Kennedy tries to persuade his audience also through argument.

Through the whole speech he attempts to strengthen their belief that a better Unites States may exist. At the end of his utterance he builds his argument exactly on this belief that he has stimulated in the audience. He repeats „if you believe‟ three times to draw the audience‟s attention to the ideas he was enforcing through the speech.

There are instances of persuasion through character also in speech B. Right at the beginning when Robert Kennedy addresses his audience to announce the assassination of

Martin Luther King, he makes a gesture that persuaded me to categorise this part of his utterance under persuasion through character.

“I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some -- some very sad news for all of you -- Could you lower those signs, please? -- I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.” (SB par. 1-2)

Although the expression is emotive, since RFK repeats three times that he has “sad news” for his listeners, he above all persuades his audience about his compassionate character. As he indicates that he is going talk only for a short time, he implies that he is not going to keep his arranged campaign rally. Then Robert Kennedy asks the audience to lower the banners they have brought to the campaign rally, because he wants to categorically detach himself from benefiting from the event in favour of his campaign. By these gestures he shows himself as a compassionate and unselfish man.

Another example of persuasion through character appears in speech B when Robert

Kennedy shows empathy towards the target audience by sharing their grief.

RFK refers to his brother‟s assassination to prove to his audience on the basis of his own traumatic experience that he understands their feelings. He persuades them through his own character, because he wants to act as a model for them. Even though he lost a member of his family, he is ready to make an effort to reconcile with the tragic event. He also feels

„hatred and mistrust‟, but he is able to control his emotions and he invites his audience to follow him in his effort. Since Robert Kennedy exposes his own feelings and uses a couple of emotionally charged words, he applies also persuasion through emotions in his utterance.

Similarly as in case of speech B, Robert Kennedy appears in front of his audience as a compassionate man at the beginning of speech C.

“This is a time of shame and a time of sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity -- my only event of today -- to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.” (SC par. 1)

RFK makes it clear to the target audience right at the beginning of his address that he is not going to make a political speech and by no means wants to benefit from the event in favour of his campaign as he declares that “It is not a day for politics.” This way he wants to demonstrate that he has respect for the death of Martin Luther King and he further emphasises his distress over the tragic event as he indicates that he has cancelled all his other appearances.

All the selected addresses by Robert Kennedy contain numerous examples of persuasion through argumentation, especially speech A. Therefore I will focus my analysis on those parts of the speeches which are most remarkable either for their content or for the degree of their persuasiveness through argument. As I delineated at the beginning of this subchapter I will analyse two types of persuasion through argument, one based on facts and evidence the other based on Robert Kennedy‟s own reasoning.

The highest number of examples of persuasion through arguments based on facts appears in speech A. The first instance I would like to list is the part of the speech where

Robert Kennedy talks about his experience from the Mississippi Delta area.

“But I have seen these other Americans. I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi, here in the United States, with a gross national product of 800 billion dollars – I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not -- so that their lives are not destroyed.” (SA par. 15)

RFK strengthens the factuality of his utterance by emphasising that he has seen the conditions with his own eyes and by drawing a realistic picture of the situation with expressions like „crippled from hunger‟, „distended stomachs‟ or „faces covered with sores‟. Robert Kennedy refers to the GNP and draws contrast in order to underline the absurdity of the situation. In addition to the argumentation based on facts, Robert Kennedy also applies persuasion through character as he proves to the audience that he cares for the underprivileged, that he does not hesitate to personally visit even the most repellent places in order to get a real image of the conditions. If we consider that RFK draws a realistic picture of the situation with emotionally charged words and he arouses the audience‟s conscience with his statement “[…] and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food […],” then we must recognise that his words are intended to persuade also through emotion. As we have seen the above part of Robert Kennedy‟s address contains all three means of persuasion to some extent. The same applies to those parts of his utterance where he talks about the conditions in the Native American reservations (SA par. 16), about the Appalachian mine workers (SA par. 18), or when he describes the situation in the black ghettoes (SA par. 19).

Another instance of persuasion through argument based on evidences occurs in speech A when Robert Kennedy talks about the progress of the war in Vietnam.

“The commander of the American forces at Ben Tre said we had to destroy that city in order to save it. So 38,000 people were wiped out or made refugees.” (SA par. 27)

RFK establishes the credibility of his statement by interpreting the words of the commander of the American forces about the destruction of a whole city in Vietnam. With accurate numeric data he emphasises the seriousness of such an act. He tries to persuade his audience about the fatal impact of the military intervention in Vietnam on civilians. This way Robert Kennedy arouses empathy in his audience towards these civilian victims of the war so he again applies persuasion through emotion.

The instances of persuasion through arguments based on Robert Kennedy‟s own reasoning are also represented in the selected addresses. One of the most remarkable examples is the part where RFK exposes the drawbacks and the shortcomings of the Gross

National Product.

“Our Gross National Product now is over 800 billion dollars a year. But that Gross National Product -- if we judge the United States of America by that -- that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and it counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.” (SA par. 20-21)

Robert Kennedy with the above argument tries to shift the audience‟s attention from the material wealth towards moral and community values. He uses a lot of repetition to maintain the coherence and the train of thought in his lengthy reasoning. He lists a lot of evidence of the indirect drawbacks of such an enormous productive potential in order to remind the audience on the losses behind the profit. This way he creates the path for the contrast he wants to draw in the second half of his argument where he articulates the real

American community values. He tries to dissuade his audience from submitting their votes based only on the judgement of the economic prosperity of the country. His words adhere to his intention expressed at the beginning of the speech to confront his audience with the real conditions in the country. In the above argumentation RFK also persuades through his character as he builds his reasoning on his own system of values and moral visions.

Nonetheless the persuasive strategy through emotions is also remarkable in his utterance as he directly arouses the audience‟s civic pride and he includes a lot of emotionally charged words from a positive semantic field in the second half of the excerpt.

An example of Robert Kennedy‟s vehement reasoning appears in speech A when he talks about the undue engagement of the American forces in South Vietnamese casualties.

“And I think that we should make it clear to the government of Saigon that if we're going to draft young men, 18 years of age here in the United States, if we're going to draft young men who are 19 years old here in the United States, and we're going to send them to fight and die in Khe Sanh, that we want the government of South Vietnam to draft their 18yearolds and their 19yearolds. And I want to make it clear that if the government of Saigon, feels Khe Sanh or Que Son and the area in the demilitarized zone are so important, if Khe San is so important to the government of Saigon, I want to see those American marines out of there and South Vietnamese troops in there. I want to have an explanation as to why American boys killed two weeks ago in South Vietnam, were three times as -- more than three times as many, as the soldiers of South Vietnam. I want to understand why the casualties and the deaths over the period of the last two weeks at the height of the fighting should be so heavily American casualties, as compared to the South Vietnamese.” (SB par. 31-33) 88

RFK expresses his view towards the war in Vietnam by going straight to the point. He gets deeply involved in the issue as he articulates his own demands. He repeats „I want‟ four times to draw the audience‟s attention to his demands and thus persuades them about his own idea of the future progress of the military conflict. He points out the inequality of the losses on lives in the American forces compared to the South Vietnamese in order to substantiate his argument that the war has been made America‟s war. RFK again attempts to arouse the audience‟s emotions by referring to the deaths on the American side. He even boosts the audience‟s dismay as he instead of referring to the victims as „soldiers‟ or „men‟, calls them „boys‟. Robert Kennedy implies to his listeners this way that very young

Americans, people at the dawning of their adulthood die in Vietnam and he implicitly criticises the administration for sacrificing them.

Robert Kennedy applies the persuasive strategy through argument based on his own reasoning also in speech B. Perhaps the most remarkable example of this occurs at the end of the address.

“We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder. But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.” (SB par. 10-11)

RFK expresses unity and equality as he talks in first person plural to his audience. He implicitly asks for their cooperation and stimulates their belief in a better future when he declares: “We can do well in this country.” Robert Kennedy shows respect towards the target audience, because he does not delude them with illusions about a future without any

89 problems. He directly and objectively tells his listeners that they will have difficult times to appear reasonable in front of them. He further strengthens this realistic attitude and increases the emotiveness of his utterance when he applies rhetorical anaphora by repeating

„it is not the end of‟ combined with negatively charged words. This way he not just grabs the audience‟s attention, but also creates the path for the contrast he wants to draw in the accumulation of his argument. With his last sentence RFK implies that „violence‟,

„lawlessness‟ and „disorders‟ are extreme situations as these are not what the “vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people” want. By his statement Robert

Kennedy attempts to suggest to his listeners to join these „vast majorities‟.

There are numerous examples of persuasion through argument based on Robert

Kennedy‟s own reasoning in speech C, for this address is intended to persuade executives to take action in order to end the violence in the country. Robert Kennedy achieves this by confronting the target audience with his own interpretation of the reasons that cause the violence.

“Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and we call it entertainment. We make it easier for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition that they desire. Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. Some Americans who preach nonviolence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of rioting, and inciting riots, have by their own conduct invited them. Some look for scapegoats; others look for conspiracies. But this much is clear: violence breeds violence; repression breeds retaliation; and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.” (SC par. 5-6)

RFK again becomes involved and he also involves his listeners in his argument as he talks on behalf of the whole nation in first person plural. Robert Kennedy stresses three times the 90 personal deixis „we‟ in order to raise the audience‟s attention to his line of reasoning while he makes them more and more involved in the issues. He strengthens his argument with juxtapositions – in rhetorical terms antithesis – as he points out the paradoxical behaviour of some political representatives who “preach nonviolence abroad” but “fail to practice it

[…] at home” or who “accuse others of rioting, and inciting riots” but “have by their own conduct invited them.” Here Robert Kennedy implicitly criticises the Johnson administration. He employs the emotive power of rhetorical anaphoras in forms of „too often‟ and „some‟ in order to create tension while he is getting closer to the climax of his argumentation, which he announces by starting with a firm „But‟ to grab the audience‟s attention. RFK emphasises the emotiveness of the climax of his argumentation by emotionally charged words from a negative semantic field like „violence‟, „repression‟,

„retaliation‟ or „sickness.‟ He even applies alliteration when he says: “violence breeds violence; repression breeds retaliation;” in order to make his statement more attention grabbing and emotive. Evidently, in addition to argumentation, the strategy to appeal to the audience‟s emotions is also demonstrated by the above excerpt from Robert Kennedy‟s address.

Persuasion through emotions is present through all the selected addresses to some extent, either as major strategy or subordinate strategy within a given part of Robert

Kennedy‟s utterance. However persuasion by arousing emotions is predominantly represented in speech C, as through the majority of this address RFK plays on the audience‟s conscience and forces them to examine their own lives and attitudes (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 341).

“Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - - whether it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law, by one

man or by a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence -- whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children -- whenever we do this, then whole nation is degraded.“ (SC par. 4)

In the above excerpt Robert Kennedy‟s words are intended to evoke empathy in the audience towards the victims of violence. RFK boosts the emotiveness of his utterance by including several means of figurative language. He applies antitheses like “in the name of the law or in defiance of the law,” or “by one man or by a gang” etc. and increases the persuasiveness of the argument. He employs a metaphor: “whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives” and emotionally charged words like „painfully‟, „clumsily‟ to appeal to the individual‟s sensitivity. Then he insinuates that every single life taken is at the same time a destruction of a family to intensify the feeling of empathy in his audience.

The next example of persuasion through emotion will demonstrate Robert

Kennedy‟s attempt to stimulate the feeling of solidarity in the target audience.

“We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or by revenge. Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done is too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution. But we can perhaps remember -- if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek -- as do we -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfilment that they can.” (SC par. 11- 13)

Robert Kennedy strengthens his argument when he draws a contrast between „life too short‟ and „work too great.‟ He evokes solidarity by asserting humanistic morals. He claims that all human beings are bound together by sharing “the same short movement of life” and the common goal to live it out in „purpose‟ and „happiness‟. This way he tries to persuade his audience that fellow citizens should not be treated as aliens. RFK‟s words persuade through emotion for they touch on the audience‟s commitment to moral and community values. 92

As the above analysis demonstrates and as I noted at the beginning of this subchapter, Robert Kennedy‟s utterances often include several means of persuasion at the same time and one can barely draw a distinct line between them. What becomes evident after the examination is the fact that the most frequent strategy is persuasion through emotion, which is applied in the majority of the selected addresses if not as a dominant, at least as a subordinate means of persuasion.

6.5 Robert F. Kennedy‟s Rhetorical Idiosyncrasies

In this subchapter I will attempt to demonstrate Robert Kennedy‟s rhetorical idiosyncrasies present in the core research material. During the analysis I will first discuss the linguistic characteristics of his rhetoric then I will point out the typical paralinguistic features of his utterances. In scope of the linguistic features I will discuss the uses of figurative language, repetitions, quotations and the extemporaneousness of Robert

Kennedy‟s particular utterances. Under the domain of paralinguistic features I will examine his tone of voice and certain gestures he made during argumentation.

Robert Kennedy‟s selected public speeches are lyrical. His speeches before the murder of his brother were pragmatic, but those delivered afterwards are strikingly lyrical and moving, sometimes prophetic. (Elie Wiesel5 (see p. 104) in Kennedy and Guthman and

Allen 1993: xxxiii) This phenomenon could be explained by Halliday‟s statement that “the individual is seen as the focus of a complex of human relationships which collectively define the content of his social behaviour.” (Halliday 2009: 43) If we treat Robert

Kennedy‟s rhetoric as his social behaviour then Halliday‟s statement above justifies the

93 change in RFK‟s character and expressiveness. Nevertheless RFK was an educated intelligent man with firm interest in literature, especially ancient Greek literature and philosophy, which had significant impact on his rhetoric. He achieves the lyricism of his utterance through personal involvement in the topics rendered, his emotiveness and above all through usage of figurative language.

First I am going to examine these artful uses of language. There are several examples of them in all the selected speeches however they are most typical in speech C.

Robert Kennedy creates a point for his reasoning with three rhetorical questions:

“No one -- no matter where he lives or what he does -- can be certain whom next will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours. Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.”(SC par. 2-3)

The above excerpt demonstrates that RFK‟s utterances abound with figurative language. In addition to the already mentioned rhetorical questions, there is also an example of repetition: „on and on and on‟, examples of antitheses: „cause-stilled‟, „wrongs – righted‟,

„coward-hero‟ and a metaphor: „an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness‟. Metaphor is again applied by him when he says: “[…] whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children -- whenever we do this, then whole nation is degraded.” (SC par. 4) Instead of saying „whenever somebody is killed‟ or something similar he uses a metaphor: „we tear at the fabric of our lives‟ thus making his message emotive, sophisticated and poetic.

Another example of metaphor occurs in speech B, when Robert Kennedy describes violence as “a stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land.” (SB par. 4) RFK 94 compares the growing violence in the country to a stain to evoke in his audience‟s minds the connotation of deterioration. He implies that the country and the nation are damaged by the growing violence. He takes advantage of the inherent negative sense of the word „stain‟ to increase the emotiveness and persuasiveness of his utterance.

One of the most remarkable traits of RFK‟s rhetoric is the usage of repetitions.

There are a lot of examples of several types of them in all of the selected addresses. It is characteristic for Robert Kennedy‟s rhetoric that he frequently repeats whole sentences or clauses not just words and this is what makes his utterances so coherent and attention grabbing. Complete sentences or clauses he repeats predominantly when he becomes deeply involved in argumentations. These instances mostly occur in speech A which is the most argumentative of the selected addresses.

“I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi, here in the United States, with a gross national product of 800 billion dollars – I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation […]”(SA par. 15)

Robert Kennedy uses repetition of whole clauses in the above excerpt to draw the target audiences attention to the issues described and to emphasise he has been witness to the situation and thus to increase the credibility of his utterance. He applies repetition of the clause also to stress that the conditions he is talking about exist in the country.

“And I don't think it's up to us here in the United States, I don't think it's up to us here in the United States, to say that we're going to destroy all South Vietnam because we have a commitment there.” (SA par. 26)

Robert Kennedy again repeats a whole clause in order to stress it and to draw the audience‟s attention to the point of his message which is that they do not have the right to destroy South Vietnam just because of their commitment there.

“What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.”(SB par. 8)

In the above excerpt RFK attempts to shift his target audience‟s attitude towards reconciliation. He repeats whole clauses to raise the listeners‟ attention and to intensify his expression before he draws contrast, which he stresses with a firm „but‟. He puts words from a negative semantic field like „hatred‟, „violence‟, „lawlessness‟ into contrast with words from a positive semantic field like „love‟, „wisdom‟, compassion. What is remarkable is that Robert Kennedy emphasises right from the beginning that something is needed in the United States. This way he creates the path for the contrast he wants to draw and to the values he wants to underline.

There are also uses of repetition in Robert Kennedy‟s selected speeches, which are more artful. For instance he frequently uses alliteration, the repetition of the first consonant in neighbouring words of a sentence. As there are many of them I will describe only the most remarkable ones. For example when RFK refers to William Allen White in speech A he says: “He did not conceal his concern in comforting words.” (SA par. 9) At the beginning of speech C Robert Kennedy talks about “the mindless menace of violence”

(SC par. 1) and he applies not only alliteration, but also consonance, which is the repetition of final consonant sounds in a sequence of words. Other appropriate examples of alliteration occur in Robert Kennedy‟s statement that “[…] violence breeds violence;

96 repression breeds retaliation […] (SC par. 6) or when he says: “The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of human purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.” (SC par. 10) The usage of alliterations increases the lyricism of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances and above all they make his speeches rhythmic and thus attention grabbing.

Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses abound with rhetorical anaphoras, the repetition of the same word or expression at the beginning of neighbouring clauses. As there are a high number of them in all of the selected addresses I will list only the most outstanding ones. The excerpt below from speech C is an appropriate example.

Other proper instances of rhetorical anaphoras appear in speech A.

“All around us, all around us -- not just on the question of Vietnam, not just on the question of the cities, not just on the question of poverty, not just on the problems of race relations -- but all around us, and why you are so concerned and why you are so disturbed -- the fact is, that men have lost confidence in themselves, in each other.” (SA par. 14)

In the above excerpt RFK repeats the clauses in order to raise the audience‟s attention and to intensify the emotiveness of the expression before he comes to the climax of his message, which is that the source of the nation‟s frustration lies in the fact that “[…] men have lost confidence in themselves, in each other.”

There are also several other examples of artful repetition in the analysed speeches, like rhetorical epiphora which is repetition of the same word or phrase at the ends of neighbouring or successive clauses.

“I don't think we have to shoot at each other, to beat each other, to curse each other, and criticize each other.” (SA par. 14)

There are also less common forms of repetitions in RFK‟s utterances like anadiplosis, which could be characterised as the repetition of the same word or phrase at the end of a clause and at the beginning of the succeeding clause.

“We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as alien, alien men with whom we share a city […]” (SC par. 9)

“We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions, the false distinctions among men […]” (SC par. 11)

These different artful forms of repetitions make Robert Kennedy‟s speeches especially coherent and apprehensible. He applied repetition for several reasons. With this strategy he was successful in retaining the audience‟s attention and the contact with them through the whole address. With repetition he was able to stress the main points of his argument and to increase the emotiveness and persuasiveness of his utterance. Nonetheless through repetition he made his speeches rhythmic and thus attention grabbing.

As I mentioned earlier in this subchapter, Robert Kennedy‟s affection for ancient

Greek and Roman culture is reflected in his selected public addresses as well.

“And now as we look at the war in Vietnam, we wonder if we still hold a decent respect for the opinions of mankind and whether the opinion maintained a descent respect for us, or whether like Athens of old we will forfeit sympathy and support, and ultimately our very security in the singleminded pursuit of our own goals and our own objectives.” (SA par. 22)

In the above excerpt Robert Kennedy attempts to persuade the target audience through the allegory of ancient Athens. He draws a parallel between situations in the United States and the ancient metropolis to imply that if the American citizens do not change their attitudes, if

98 the country does not change the course of actions it may lead to a complete loss of the prestige and the position of the country, as it similarly lead to the fall of Athens.

“I don't want to be part of a government; I don't want to be part of the United States; I don't want to be part of the American people, and have them write of us as they wrote of Rome: ‘They made a desert and they called it peace.’”(SA par. 23)

In the above excerpt Robert Kennedy substantiates his argument by drawing a parallel between the United States and the ancient Roman Empire. He compares the position of the United States army in Vietnam to the ancient Roman legions who achieved peace through wiping out their enemies. This way he suggests that the administration is not doing the right thing in Vietnam and he firmly denies being a part of these actions and indirectly prompts the audience not to support such policies any longer.

“And when we win in November And when we win in November, and we begin a new period of time for the United States of America, I want the next generation of Americans to look back upon this period and say as they said of Plato: ‘Joy was in those days, but to live.’ Thank you very much.”(SA par. 41)

Robert Kennedy in the excerpt above attempts to persuade his audience to vote for him by promising them a better United States and a better future, comparable with Plato‟s times at the acme of the Athenian democracy.

“And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.”(SB par. 12)

. At the closing part of speech B (example above) Robert Kennedy refers to the humanistic ideas of the ancient Greeks to calm down his audience. Through this message

99 he tries to dissuade them from acting violently, from taking revenge for Martin Luther

King‟s death. By his message RFK leads the target audience towards reconciliation.

Robert Kennedy frequently cited famous historical and literary figures in his public addresses. All the three analysed speeches include quotations of famous public figures applied to increase the credibility of his arguments and citations of literary works to intensify the emotiveness of his particular utterances. In speech A he quotes William Allen

White and at the closing part of the address George Bernard Shaw. In speech B he attempts to impress and please the target audience by quoting Aeschylus and he poetically closes his thoughts in speech C by a quote from Tennyson‟s Ulysses.

In the example below, taken from speech A, Robert Kennedy cites William Allen

White in order to suggest to his young audience that they have the biggest potential to change the course of the country and to make a better future. Although the quoted author praises those who riot and rebel, RFK does not mean the citation to be taken literarily, he just implies that the initiatives for making radical changes in the country are particularly expected from young people, from students.

Robert Kennedy quotes his favourite poet Aeschylus in speech B:

“Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.” (Aeschylus in SB par. 7)

The above quote is outstanding for several reasons. It is proper evidence that RFK treated his target audiences with respect, since he addresses even uneducated black people from the

100 city ghetto with sophisticated words to show equality. He cites a piece of ancient Greek literature to alleviate the tension in an agitated crowd of labour workers and he succeeds.

Through aptly chosen quote he implies to his audience to seek reconciliation in God.

Robert Kennedy‟s addresses contain extemporaneous utterances. Obviously these are most remarkable in speech B as this address was built up completely from RFK‟s own thoughts and was delivered from memory.

“[…] I have some -- some very sad news for all of you -- Could you lower those signs, please?” (SB par. 2 )

The extemporaneousness of the utterance above lies in the fact that Robert Kennedy breaks the train of his thought as he directly asks the audience to lower the banners they have brought to the campaign rally to imply that he is not going to give a campaign speech.

Later he applies colloquial language to express his naturalness when he says: “So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true […]” (SB par. 9) Other evidence of Robert Kennedy‟s occasional extemporaneousness are false starts like „but we‟ and vague repetition like „we will have difficult times‟ in the example below.

“We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future.” (SB par. 10)

These false starts and vague repetition appear in RFK‟s utterances especially when he becomes emotional, when he engages himself in argumentations and talks from memory.

Naturally as speech C is the most argumentative of the analysed addresses it contains instances of extemporaneousness like a false start highlighted in the excerpt below or vague repetition of the words „negotiation‟ and „negotiate‟ when he demonstrates what policies should be enforced in South Vietnam. (SA par. 29-30)

101

“[…] and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not -- so that their lives are not destroyed.” (SA par. 15)

“One of the things that we're going to have to accept as American people, but the other, the other alternative is so unacceptable.” (SA par. 30)

The audio recordings of the selected addresses allow us to also identify some typical paralinguistic features of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances. One of the most characteristic paralinguistic features of his utterances is his moderate tone of voice. It is especially remarkable in speech C. Within this address RFK not for a moment raises the pitch of his voice. He talks with sadness in his voice, softly and makes a lot of pauses. The same applies to speech B, which is understandable as his purpose is to calm down the target audience, to alleviate the tension in the crowd. In the case of both speeches Robert

Kennedy adjusts his tone of voice to the circumstances, which shows that his rhetoric is determined and affected by the tragic event of Martin Luther King‟s assassination. RFK‟s moderate tone of voice is varied with vehement emotive argumentations in speech A. When he demonstrates his viewpoint towards the progress of the war in Vietnam he becomes very emotional, he raises the pitch of his voice and talks fast. At these moments he resolutely stresses the content words of his message. These emotive argumentations are accumulated most of the time in RFK‟s declaration of running for the presidency. In all cases when he asserts that he is running for the presidency or explains why he is running for the presidency, he makes a gesture to substantiate his assertion. He does the same when he becomes deeply involved in the argumentation. This gesture is a rhythmic knocking on the lectern which he accelerates as he is getting closer to the climax of his thought. By this gesture he grabs the audience‟s attention he creates tension and increases the emotiveness and persuasiveness of his utterance. The most appropriate example of this appears in speech 102

A, when Robert Kennedy talks about the starving children in the Mississippi Delta area and he assigns collective responsibility for the conditions.

“[…] and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not -- so that their lives are not destroyed. I don't think that's acceptable in the United States of America, and I think we need a change.” (SA par. 15)

When he declares the conditions unacceptable he starts knocking on the lectern and as he is getting closer to the point of his argument he gradually accelerates the knocking and raises the pitch of his voice and he starts talking fast. This way he emphasises the need of making changes.

“I don't think we have to shoot at each other, to beat each other, to curse each other, and criticize each other. I think that we can do better in this country. And that is why I run for President of the United States.” (SA par. 14)

Robert Kennedy stresses the expressions „shoot at each other‟, „beat each other‟,

„curse each other‟ and „criticize each other‟ to increase the emotiveness of his utterance and to raise the audience‟s attention. When he asserts that he is running for President of the

Unites States he knocks on the lectern.

Notes

1. William Allen White (1868-1944) – writer, publicist. “An influential exponent of

grass-roots Republican views in the early twentieth century. White also authored

biographies of Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge.” (Kennedy and Guthman

and Allen 1993: 411)

2. Whitman's rifle – in 1966, “a former Eagle Scout, ex-Marine, and model student,

Charles Whitman, killed his wife and mother, and then climbed with his rifle to the 103

top of the University of Texas tower and for more than an hour and a half

methodically killed strangers in the quadrangle below. Fourteen people died that

day before police killed Whitman – ending what was then the worst mass murder in

United States history.” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 411)

3. Speck's knife – “in 1966, a drifter named Richard Speck fatally stabbed eight

student nurses in Chicago.” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 411)

4. War on Poverty – President Johnson “had declared an „unconditional war against

poverty‟ in his first State of the Union address in January 1964, and on March 16 of

that year requested nearly $1 billion in federal funds to wage the effort. Johnson

said it was a „war…not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it, and,

above all, to eliminate it.‟ Some of the programmatic elements of the War on

Poverty became part of Johnson‟s vision of the „‟Great Society‟, […] which

included […] massive federal initiatives in the areas of urban renewal, health care,

education, poverty and hunger.” (Kennedy and Guthman and Allen 1993: 408)

5. Eliezer “Elie” Wiesel (1928) – Nobel Laureate, professor in the humanities,

political activist, Holocaust survivor and the author of more than 57 books.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel)

104

7. Conclusion and evaluation of the findings

The aim of this thesis is to conduct research in Robert F. Kennedy‟s 1968 presidential election campaign speeches with an intention to outline the features of his utterances that earned him success in inspiring masses and frightened the power structure.

During the research I have attempted to describe Robert Kennedy‟s discourse strategies and rhetorical devices with an aim to explore to what degree are his rhetorical devices predetermined by external factors, like the topics rendered, the speech events and the nature of the target audiences. On the grounds of the above objectives I have articulated the following research questions:

1. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

topic rendered by the speaker?

2. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

speech event and the nature of the target audience?

In reference to Halliday I have hypothesised that the situational factors determine the selections in the linguistic system. (Halliday 2009: 94) For this reason I have assumed that Robert Kennedy‟s rhetorical devices and discourse strategies in the selected addresses are predetermined by situational factors, like the topic, the speech event and the nature of the target audience. In order to justify my assumption I have laid greater emphasis on the analysis of the contextual meaning (Firth 1957 in Downes 1998) of his utterances. For this reason I have also included in the thesis a separate chapter dedicated to Robert Kennedy‟s biography, character study and the historico-political context of the time in order for a better understanding of his utterances by the reader. In Fairclough‟s (1989) terms I want to

105 make the reader familiar with the so called „member resources‟ within the discourse of

Robert Kennedy‟s selected addresses. In chapter 4 I describe political speech as an individual genre within the domain of political discourse and I delineate in what relation the analysed addresses fall under the genre of political speech. I attempt to find answers to the research questions in chapter 6 of which title is identical with the title of the thesis as this chapter is regarded as the core of the research. I divide chapter six into several subchapters each dedicated to a particular aspect of Robert Kennedy‟s utterance.

So far I have summarised the objectives, the hypotheses and the structure of the thesis. I will continue with evaluation of the findings by answering the formulated research questions individually.

1. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

topic rendered by the speaker?

During the analysis of various features of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances in chapter 6

I point out several associations. The topics in speech A, like the war in Vietnam or poverty in certain areas of the country engage Robert Kennedy in vehement argumentations. When he talks about the war he shows involvement by frequently asserting his viewpoint and concern. These parts of RFK‟s utterance show a high degree of subjectivity as he often expresses his own demands and his opinion about the progress of the war. He applies persuasion through argument supported with facts and evidence and through his own reasoning. In order to arouse the audience‟s attention and to retain his contact with them he uses a lot of repetition, especially rhetorical anaphoras. When he talks about starving children in the Mississippi area he shows physical involvement in the issue as he stresses several times that he has been a witness to the conditions thus he applies persuasion through his own character and through emotion. He uses rhetorical emphasis to draw a 106 realistic picture of the situation and increase the credibility and the persuasiveness of his utterance. In the case of speech B the topic rendered is Martin Luther King‟s death and legacy. The purpose of the speech is to pacify the target audience which is reflected by the selection of rhetorical devices. Robert Kennedy expresses equality and empathy towards the audience. He employs persuasion through his own character and through emotion. He attempts to shift the audience‟s attitude with words from a positive semantic field in order to remind them of Martin Luther King‟s message. He also shows his physical involvement when he expresses empathy by drawing a parallel between his grief over the assassination of his brother and the audience‟s grief over MLK‟s death. He builds his reasoning on numerous contrasts with emphasis on reconciliation and peace. In speech C Robert

Kennedy talks about the growing violence in the country. He assigns collective responsibility to the audience and to the whole nation for the violence in the country. He applies persuasion through emotion and through his own reasoning. The emotiveness of the address is increased by figurative language, like metaphors, alliterations or rhetorical questions. Through confrontational arguments he obliges the target audience to explore their own conscience and morals. Robert Kennedy‟s involvement and subjectivity is less apparent in this address than in speech A or B.

Various topics are covered in the selected addresses. As the above summary demonstrates Robert Kennedy renders each of them with a different attitude which results in different discourse strategies and rhetorical devices applied by him. Therefore, as the answer to the first research question I conclude that in the analysed addresses the discourse strategies and the rhetorical devices are predetermined by the topic rendered by Robert

Kennedy.

107

2. Are the discourse strategies and rhetorical devices predetermined by the

speech event and the nature of the target audience?

In the first subchapter of chapter 6 dedicated to Robert Kennedy‟s relationship toward his target audiences we have seen that he applies different strategies of building relationship with his listeners, depending on the speech event and the nature of the particular audience. In speech A he talks to a huge crowd of students at an ordinary campaign rally. Robert Kennedy lays great emphasis on building a friendly relationship with the target audience. First he applies self-deprecating humour and irony to win their favour then he proves his associations to the representatives of their state in order to earn their trust. As the event is a pre-election campaign rally, RFK‟s main purpose is to persuade his young audience to vote for him in the election. The event and the nature of the audience give space for open confrontation of the crowd with the conditions in the country. Robert

Kennedy‟s emotionally charged argumentations literally provoke the audience‟s reaction.

For this reason, the interaction between RFK and the target audience is the most remarkable in speech A.

In the case of speech B Robert Kennedy talks to mostly African-American labour workers from the city ghetto in Indianapolis. He is supposed to communicate to them that

Martin Luther King has been assassinated. Contrary to speech A, in speech B Robert

Kennedy‟s purpose is to alleviate the tension in the crowd and to pacify them. For this reason he draws their attention to words from a positive semantic field, like „love‟, „peace‟,

„compassion‟ and „understanding‟. Naturally, the event and the nature of the audience do not provide the opportunity for confrontational attitude or arousal of emotions. Robert

Kennedy with carefully chosen words and by quoting Aeschylus attempts to incline the target audience to seek reconciliation in religion. He expresses equality and empathy 108 through the whole address. Persuasive strategy through character and through emotion dominates over reasoning in this address.

In the case of speech C Robert Kennedy talks to an audience consisting of mostly white executives at a luncheon. His purpose is to draw the target audience‟s attention to the growing violence in the country. Speech C is the most narrative of the selected addresses.

Robert Kennedy does not show such a deep involvement in the issues as in speech A and B.

Due to his distress over the assassination of Martin Luther King from the day before his address is emotive. He uses sophisticated words and figurative language. Persuasion through emotion dominates the address as Robert Kennedy by confrontational expressions compels his audience to explore their own conscience.

The variety of the speech events and the target audiences is reflected also in the paralinguistic features of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances. In speech A during the vehement argumentations he raises the pitch of his voice and he talks emotionally and rapidly. In order to make his arguments more attention grabbing and persuasive he even rhythmically knocks on the lectern to stress the point of the argument. In speech B his tone of voice is moderate and thus calming. He does not raise the pitch of his voice and he does not stress the emotionally charged words of his utterance. He talks slowly and pauses frequently. In speech C he also talks with a moderate tone of voice. Through sadness in his voice he wants to increase the emotiveness of his utterance and to emphasise his concern about the growing violence in the country.

On the grounds of the above evaluation of the findings I conclude that Robert

Kennedy‟s discourse strategies and rhetorical devices are predetermined by the speech event and the nature of the target audiences in his selected public addresses.

109

Based on the finding in the subchapter dedicated to the open confrontation of the target audience, which is that Robert Kennedy categorically detaches himself from hiding the real conditions in the country in „false hopes and illusions‟ (SA par. 11), I conclude that

Robert Kennedy in his selected addresses acts as “a seeker after truth and an objective observer of the way things are.” (Fish 1989 in Richards 2008:6-7)

110

8 Summary

This thesis analyses the predetermination of Robert Kennedy‟s discourse strategies and rhetorical devices in his selected 1968 presidential campaign speeches by factors like the topics covered, the speech events and the nature of the target audiences. The core research material consists of three public addresses delivered by Robert F. Kennedy, selected according to different criteria, like the classical rhetorical organizational pattern, the heterogeneity of the target audiences and the speech events, and the absence of partisan agendas. The research material is subjected to a qualitative political discourse analysis which is conducted through critical reading of the speech transcripts and subsequent listening to the recordings of the addresses in order to identify, in addition to the linguistic features, also the paralinguistic features of Robert Kennedy‟s utterances. The analysis of the speeches provide information about Robert Kennedy‟s relationship towards his target audiences and about different aspects of his rhetoric, like the degrees of his subjectivity and his personal involvement in the issues, the means of persuasion applied by him and his rhetorical idiosyncrasies.

The results of the analysis show the following findings:

- Robert Kennedy‟s subjectivity is most remarkable when he talks about the

war in Vietnam. He becomes most involved in the issue when he describes

the poverty in certain areas of the country. The emotiveness of his

utterance is most apparent when he talks about Martin Luther King‟s death

and legacy and about the growing violence in the country. His interaction

with the target audience is most intensive during his argumentations about

111

the war in Vietnam and his utterance becomes most confrontative when he

assigns collective responsibility for the growing violence in the country.

- Persuasion through argument dominates in the speech delivered to

students at an ordinary campaign rally. In this address the building of the

relationship with the audiences is complex and the interaction between

Robert Kennedy and the audience is frequent. To increase the

persuasiveness of his arguments Robert Kennedy creates tension and

arouses the audience‟s emotion.

In the speech on the assassination of Martin Luther King, delivered

to mostly African-American ghetto people, persuasion through character

and emotion are applied equally. The relationship with the audience is

personal but the interaction between Robert Kennedy and the audience is

less frequent. With positively charged words he alleviates the tension in

the crowd.

The address delivered to white executives in the Cleveland City

Club shows almost no signs of interaction. Persuasion through emotion

dominates the address. The emotiveness of the utterance is increased by

employing figurative language.

The above findings reach the conclusion that Robert Kennedy‟s discourse strategies and rhetorical devices are predetermined by the topics rendered, by the speech events and by the nature of the target audiences in his selected addresses.

112

9 Shrnutí

Tato práce analyzuje předurčenost diskurzivních strategií a rétorických prostředků

Roberta Kennedyho faktormi jako téma, řečové události a povaha cílového publika, v jeho vybraných projevech v prezidentské kampani v roce 1968. Hlavní výzkumný materiál se skládá ze tří projevů Roberta F. Kennedyho, vybraných dle různých kritérií, mezi které patří klasická rétorická organizační struktura, heterogenita cílového publika a řečových událostí a nepřítomnost stranických agend. Výzkumný materiál je vystaven kvalitativní analýze politického diskurzu, která se provádí prostřednictvím kritického čtení řečových přepisů a následného poslechu nahrávek jednotlivých projevů s cílem určení jak lingvistických rysů, tak paralingvistických vlastností projevů Roberta Kennedyho. Analýza projevů poskytuje informace o vztahu Roberta Kennedyho k jeho cílovému publiku, o různých aspektech jeho rétoriky, jakou je míra jeho subjektivity, osobní angažovaností v problémech, přesvědčovacích prostředků a rétorické výstřednosti.

Výsledky analýzy ukazují následující zjištění:

- Subjektivita Roberta Kennedyho je nejvíce pozoruhodná, když mluví

o válce ve Vietnamu. Nejvíce se angažuje v problematice kdy popisuje

chudobu v některých oblastech země. Emocionalita jeho promluvy je nejvíce

viditelná v části, kdy mluví o smrti a poslání Martina Luthera Kinga Jr. a

rostoucím násilí v zemi. Jeho interakce s cílovým publikem je

nejintenzivnější během jeho argumentace o válce ve Vietnamu. Jeho

promluva se stává nejvíce konfrontační, když poukazuje na kolektivní

odpovědnost za rostoucí násilí v zemi.

113

- V jeho projevu ke studentům, v rámci běžné volební kampaně,

dominuje způsob přesvědčování prostřednictvím argumentu. Budování

vztahu s publikem je v tomto přednesu velmi složité. Časté jsou také jeho

interakce s publikem. Pro zvýšení přesvědčivosti argumentů vyvolává v

publiku emoce, a tím zvyšuje napětí.

V projevu o atentátu na Martina Luthera Kinga, před publikem

většinou afro-amerických lidí z ghetta, je uplatňováno přesvědčování pomocí

emocí i charakteru v rovnaké míře. Vztah k publiku je osobní, ale interakce

mezi Robertem Kennedym a publikem je méně častá. Pozitivně laděnými

slovy zmírňuje napětí v davu.

Řeč, přednesená vysoce postaveným činitelem v Cleveland City

klubu, nevykazuje téměř žádné známky interakce. V projevu dominuje

přesvědčování prostřednictvím emocí. Emotivnost projevu je zdůrazněna

vyšší implementací metafor v jeho řeči.

Z uvedených zjištění vyplývá, že diskurzivní strategie a rétorické prostředky ve zkoumaných projevech Roberta Kennedyho jsou předurčeny tématem, řečovými událostmi a povahou cílového publika.

114

10 Works Cited

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre : language use in professional settings. London New

York: Longman.

Downes, W. (1998). Language and society. Cambridge England New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London New York: Longman.

Halliday, M. (2009). Language and society. London: Continuum.

Jacobs, J. (1968). RFK His Life and Death. New York: USA Dell Publishing.

Joseph, J. (2004). Language and identity: national, ethnic, religious. Houndmills,

Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kennedy, R. and Guthman, E. and Allen, R. (1993). RFK : collected speeches. New York:

Viking.

Opt, S. and Gring, M. (2009). The rhetoric of social intervention: an introduction. Los

Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.

Richards, J. (2008). Rhetoric. London New York: Routledge.

Schlesinger, A. (1985). Robert Kennedy and his times. New York: Ballantine Books.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. London New

York: Longman.

(2002). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners of American English. Oxford:

Macmillan Education.

115

Electronic sources

Barthelmes, W. (1969). Recorded interview by Roberta W. Greene. May 20, 1969,

Robert Kennedy Oral History Program of the John F. Kennedy Library.

Retrieved from http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/RFKOH-WB-

01.aspx

Hall, David R. (2011). Objectivity, Subjectivity and Competing Models of Research,

Proceedings of the International Conference: Doing Research in Applied

Linguistics, 21-22 April 2011, Bangkok. 11-16.

Retrieved from http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/dral/PDF%20proceedings%20on%20Web/11-

16_Objectivity_Subjectivity_and_Competing_Models_of_Research.pdf

Phillips, D. C. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. Qualitative inquiry

in education: The continuing debate, 19-37.

Retrieved from http://www.educ.ttu.edu/uploadedFiles/personnel-folder/lee-

duemer/epsy-5382/documents/Subjectivity%20and%20objectivity.pdf

Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. Politics as text and talk:

Analytical approaches to political discourse, 203 – 237.

Retrieved from

http://discourses.org/OldArticles/Political%20discourse%20and%20political%20co

gnition.pdf

116

“Civil Rights Act of 1965”. The Free Dictionary by Farlex. - 20 Oct. 2012

Retrieved from

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights+Act+of+1965

“Eliezer „Elie‟ Wiesel”. Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopedia.- 20 Oct. 2012

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel

“Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)”. Wikipedia: the Free

Encyclopedia.- 20 Oct. 2012

Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

“Wesley Barthelmes”. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. -15 May 2012

Retrieved from http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/RFKOH-WB-

02.aspx

117

Primary sources (Speech transcripts and audio recordings)

Kennedy, R. (1968). Recapturing America‟s Moral Vision. Speech delivered on 18 March

1968 at The University of Kansas.

Retrieved from

http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkreclaimingemoralvision.htm

Kennedy, R. (1968). Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Speech

delivered on 4 April 1968 in Indianapolis, IN.

Retrieved from http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html

Kennedy, R. (1968). The Mindless Menace of Violence. Speech delivered on 4 April 1968

at City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio.

Retrieved from http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkclevelandcityclub.htm

118

11 Appendix

Speech A

Robert F. Kennedy

Recapturing America‟s Moral Vision

Delivered 18 March 1968 at the University of Kansas

1. Chancellor, Governor and Mrs. Docking, Senator and Mrs. Pierson, ladies and gentlemen and my friends:

2. I'm very pleased to be here. I'm really not here to make a speech. I've come because I came from Kansas State and they want to send their love to all of you. They did. That's all they talk about over there, how much they love you. Actually, I want to establish the fact that I am not an alumnus of Villanova.

3. I'm very pleased and very touched, as my wife is, at your warm reception here. I think of my colleagues in the United States Senate, and I think of my friends there, and I think of the warmth that exists in the Senate of the United States -- I don't know why you're laughing. I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: "We hope you recover," and the vote was 42 to 40.

4. And then they took a poll in one of the financial magazines of five hundred of the largest businessmen in the United States, to ask them, what political leader they most admired, who they wanted to see President of the United States. And I received one vote -- and I understand they're looking for him. I could take all my supporters to lunch, but I don't know whether you're going to like what I'm going to say today but I just want you to remember, as you look back upon this day, and when it comes to a question of who you're going to support-- that it was a Kennedy who got you out of class.

5. I am very pleased to be here with my colleagues, Senator Pierson, who I think has contributed so much in the Senate of the United States, who has fought for the interests of Kansas and has had a

119

distinguished career, and I'm very proud to be associated with him. And Senator Carlson who is not here, who is one of the most respected members of the Senate of the United States -- respected not just on the Republican side, by the Democratic side, by all of his colleagues, and I am pleased and proud to be in the Senate with Senator Carlson from the State of Kansas.

6. And I'm happy to be here with an old friend, Governor Docking. I don't think there was anyone that was more committed to President Kennedy and made more of an effort under the most adverse circumstances and with the most difficult situation than his father, who was Governor of the State of Kansas -- nobody I worked with more closely, myself, when I was in Los Angeles. We weren't 100 percent successful, but that was a relationship that I will always value, and I know how highly President Kennedy valued it and I'm very pleased to see him -- and to have seen his mother, Mrs. Docking today also, so I'm very pleased to be in his State. And then I'm pleased to be here because I like to see all of you, in addition.

7. In 1824, when Thomas Hart Benton was urging in Congress the development of Iowa and other western territories, he was opposed by Daniel Webster, the Senator from Massachusetts. "What," asked Webster, "What do we want with this vast and worthless area? This region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts, of shifting sands and of whirlwinds, of dust and of cactus and of prairie dogs? To what use," he said, "could we ever hope to put these great deserts? I will never vote for one-cent from the public treasury to place the west one inch closer to Boston than it is now." And that is why I am here today instead of my brother Edward.

8. I'm glad to come here to the home of the man who publicly wrote: If our colleges and universities do not breed men who riot, who rebel, who attack life with all the youthful vision and vigor, then there is something wrong with our colleges. The more riots that come out of our college campuses, the better the world for tomorrow.

9. And despite all the accusations against me, those words were not written by me. They were written by that notorious seditionist, William Allen White. And I know what great affection this university has for him. He is an honored man today, here on your campus and around the rest of the nation. But when he lived and wrote, he was reviled as an extremist and worse. For he spoke -- he spoke as he

120

believed. He did not conceal his concern in comforting words. He did not delude his readers or himself with false hopes and with illusions. This spirit of honest confrontation is what America needs today. It has been missing all too often in the recent years and it is one of the reasons that I run for President of the United States.

10. For we as a people are strong enough; we are brave enough to be told the truth of where we stand. And this country needs honesty and candor in its political life and from the President of the United States. But I don't want to run for the presidency -- I don't want America to make the critical choice of direction and leadership this year without confronting that truth.

11. I don't want to win support of votes by hiding the American condition in false hopes or illusions. I want us to find out the promise of the future, what we can accomplish here in the United States, what this country does stand for and what is expected of us in the years ahead. And I also want us to know and examine where we've gone wrong. And I want all of us, young and old, to have a chance to build a better country and change the direction of the United States of America.

12. This morning I spoke about the war in Vietnam, and I will speak briefly about it in a few moments. But there is much more to this critical election year than the war in Vietnam. It is, at a root, the root of all of it, the national soul of the United States. The President calls it "restlessness." Our cabinet officers, such as John Gardner and others tell us that America is deep in a malaise of spirit: discouraging initiative, paralyzing will and action, and dividing Americans from one another, by their age, their views, and by the color of their skin and I don't think we have to accept that here in the United States of America.

13. Demonstrators shout down government officials and the government answers by drafting demonstrators. Anarchists threaten to burn the country down and some have begun to try, while tanks have patrolled American streets and machine guns have fired at American children. I don't think that this a satisfying situation for the United States of America. Our young people -- the best educated, and the best comforted in our history -- turn from the Peace Corps and public commitment of a few years ago to lives of disengagement and

121

despair-- many of them turned on with drugs and turned off on America -- none of them here, of course, at Kansas -- right?

14. All around us, all around us -- not just on the question of Vietnam, not just on the question of the cities, not just on the question of poverty, not just on the problems of race relations -- but all around us, and why you are so concerned and why you are so disturbed -- the fact is, that men have lost confidence in themselves, in each other. It is confidence which has sustained us so much in the past -- rather than answer the cries of deprivation and despair -- cries which the President's Commission on Civil Disorders tells us could split our nation finally asunder -- rather than answer these desperate cries, hundreds of communities and millions of citizens are looking for their answers to force and repression and private gun stocks, so that we confront our fellow citizen across impassible barriers of hostility and mistrust. And again, I don't believe that we have to accept that. I don't believe that it's necessary in the United States of America. I think that we can work together. I don't think we have to shoot at each other, to beat each other, to curse each other, and criticize each other. I think that we can do better in this country. And that is why I run for President of the United States.

15. And if we seem powerless to stop this growing division between Americans who at least confront one another, there are millions more living in the hidden places whose names and faces are completely unknown. But I have seen these other Americans. I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi, here in the United States, with a gross national product of 800 billion dollars -- I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children are not -- so that their lives are not destroyed. I don't think that's acceptable in the United States of America, and I think we need a change.

16. I have seen Indians living on their bare and meager reservations with no jobs, with an unemployment rate of 80 percent, and with so little hope for the future -- so little hope for the future that for young people, for young men and women in their teens, the greatest cause of death amongst them is suicide. That they end their lives by killing

122

themselves -- I don't think that -- that we have to accept that -- for the first American, for this minority here in the United States.

17. If young boys and girls are so filled with despair when they're going to high school and feel that their lives are so hopeless and that nobody's going to care for them, nobody's going to be involved with them, and nobody's going to bother with them -- that they either hang themselves, shoot themselves or kill themselves. I don't think that's acceptable and I think the United States of America, I think the American people, I think we can do much, much better. And I run for the presidency because of that.

18. I run for the presidency because I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity, but they cannot, for the mines are closed and their jobs are gone and no one -- neither industry, nor labor, nor government -- has cared enough to help. I think we here in this country, with the unselfish spirit that exists in the United States of America, I think we can do better here also.

19. I have seen the people of the black ghetto, listening to ever greater promises of equality and of justice, as they sit in the same decaying schools and huddled in the same filthy rooms, without heat, warding off the cold and warding off the rats. If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America. And this is one of the great tasks of leadership for us, as individuals and citizens this year.

20. But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task: It is to confront the poverty of satisfaction, purpose, and dignity that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product now is over 800 billion dollars a year. But that Gross National Product -- if we judge the United States of America by that --that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and it counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife and the television programs which glorify violence in

123

order to sell toys to our children. Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

21. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

22. If this is true here at home, so it is true elsewhere in world. From the beginning our proudest boast has been the promise of Jefferson, that we, here in this country, would be the best hope of mankind. And -- And now as we look at the war in Vietnam, we wonder if we still hold a decent respect for the opinions of mankind and whether the opinion maintained a descent respect for us, or whether like Athens of old we will forfeit sympathy and support, and ultimately our very security in the single-minded pursuit of our own goals and our own objectives.

23. I do not want, and I do believe that most Americans do not want, to sell out America's interest to simply withdraw -- to raise the white flag of surrender in Vietnam -- that would be unacceptable to us as a people, and unacceptable to us as a country.

24. But I am concerned about the course of action that we are presently following in South Vietnam. I am concerned about the fact that this has been made America's war. It was said a number of years ago that this is "their war" -- "this is the war of the South Vietnamese," that "we can help them, but we can't win it for them." But over the period of the last three years we have made the war and the struggle in South Vietnam our war, and I think that's unacceptable.

25. I don't accept the idea that this is just a military action, that this is just a military effort, and every time we have had difficulties in South Vietnam and Southeast Asia we have had only one response; we have had only one way to deal with it. Month after month, year after year we have dealt with it in only on way, and that's to send more military men and increase our military power and I don't think that's the kind of a struggle that it is in Southeast Asia.

124

26. I think that this is a question of the people of South Vietnam. I think it's a question of the people of South Vietnam feeling its worth their efforts, that they're going to make the sacrifice, that they feel that their -- their country and their government is worth fighting for. And I think the developments of the last several years have shown, have demonstrated that the people of South Vietnam feel no association and no affiliation for the government of Saigon. And I don't think it's up to us here in the United States, I don't think it's up to us here in the United States, to say that we're going to destroy all South Vietnam because we have a commitment there.

27. The commander of the American forces at Ben Tre said we had to destroy that city in order to save it. So 38,000 people were wiped out or made refugees. We here in the United States -- not just the United States government, not just the commander and forces in South Vietnam, the United States government and every human being that's in this room -- we are part of that decision and I don't think that we need do that any longer, and I think we should change our policy.

28. I don't want to be part of a government; I don't want to be part of the United States; I don't want to be part of the American people, and have them write of us as they wrote of Rome: "They made a desert and they called it peace."

29. I think that we should go to the negotiating table, and I think we should take the steps to go to the negotiating table. And I've said it over the period of the last two years. I think that we have a chance to have negotiations, and the possibility of meaningful negotiations, but last February, a year ago, when the greatest opportunity existed for negotiations the Administration, and the President of the United States felt that the military victory was right around the corner. And we sent a message to Ho Chi Minh, in February 8th of 1967 virtually asking for their unconditional surrender. We are not going to obtain the unconditional surrender of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong any more than they are going to obtain the unconditional surrender of the United States of America. We're going to have to negotiate. We're going to have to make compromises. We're going to have to negotiate with the National Liberation Front. But people can argue, "That's unfortunate that we have to negotiate with the National Liberation Front," but that is a fact of life.

125

30. We have three choices: We either can pull out of South Vietnam unilaterally and raise the white flag -- I think that's unacceptable. Second, we can continue to escalate, we can continue to send more men there, until we have millions and millions of more men and we can continue to bomb North Vietnam, and in my judgment we will be no nearer success, we will be no nearer victory than we are now in February of 1968. And the third step that we can take is to go to the negotiating table. We can go to the negotiating table and not achieve everything that we wish. One of the things that we're going to have to accept as American people, but the other, the other alternative is so unacceptable. One of the things that we're going to have to accept as American people and that the United States government must accept, is that the National Liberation Front is going to play a role in the future political process of South Vietnam. And we're going to have to negotiate with them. That they're going to play some role in the future political process of South Vietnam, that they're going to be elections and the people of South Vietnam are ultimately going to determine and decide their own future.

31. That is the course of action that I would like to see. I would like to see the United States government to make it clear to the government of Saigon that we are not going to tolerate the corruption and the dishonesty. And I think that we should make it clear to the government of Saigon that if we're going to draft young men, 18 years of age here in the United States, if we're going to draft young men who are 19 years old here in the United States, and we're going to send them to fight and die in Khe Sanh, that we want the government of South Vietnam to draft their 18-year-olds and their 19-year-olds.

32. And I want to make it clear that if the government of Saigon, feels Khe Sanh or Que Son and the area in the demilitarized zone are so important, if Khe San is so important to the government of Saigon, I want to see those American marines out of there and South Vietnamese troops in there.

33. I want to have an explanation as to why American boys killed two weeks ago in South Vietnam, were three times as many -- more than three times as many, as the soldiers of South Vietnam. I want to understand why the casualties and the deaths over the period of the last two weeks at the height of the fighting should be so heavily

126

American casualties, as compared to the South Vietnamese. This is their war.

34. I think we have to make the effort to help them. I think that we have to make the effort to fight, but I don't think we should have to carry the whole burden of that war. I think the South Vietnamese should.

35. And if I am elected President of the United States, with help, with your help, these are the kinds of policies that I'm going to put into operation.

36. We can do better here in the United States. We can do better. We can do better in our relationships to other countries around the rest of the globe.

37. President Kennedy, when he campaigned in 1960, he talked about the loss of prestige that the United States had suffered around the rest of the globe. But look at what our condition is at the present time. The President of the United States goes to a meeting of the OAS at Montevideo -- can he go into the city of Montevideo? Or can he travel through the cities of Latin America where there was such deep love and deep respect? He has to stay in a military base at Montevideo, with American ships out at sea and American helicopters overhead in order to ensure that he's protected. I don't think that's acceptable. I think that we should have conditions here in the United States, and support enough for our policies, so that the President of the United States can travel freely and clearly across all the cities this country, and not just to military bases.

38. I think there's more that we can do internally here. I think there's more that we can do in South Vietnam. I don't think we have to accept the situation as we have it at the moment. I think that we can do better, and I think the American people think that we can do better.

39. George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?"

40. So I come here to Kansas to ask for your help. In the difficult five months ahead before the convention in Chicago, I ask for your help and for your assistance. If you believe the United States can do better, if you believe that we should change our course of action, if you believe that we should -- that the United States stands for

127

something here internally as well as elsewhere around the globe, I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months.

41. And when we win in November -- And when we win in November, and we begin a new period of time for the United States of America, I want the next generation of Americans to look back upon this period and say as they said of Plato: "Joy was in those days, but to live."

42. Thank you very much.

Retrieved from http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkreclaimingemoralvision.htm

128

Speech B

Robert F. Kennedy

Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Delivered 4 April 1968 in Indianapolis, IN

1. Ladies and Gentlemen,

2. I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some -- some very sad news for all of you -- Could you lower those signs, please? -- I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

3. Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black -- considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible -- you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

4. We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization -- black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.

5. For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.

6. But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.

129

7. My favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote: Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.

8. What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

9. So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love -- a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.

10. We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.

11. But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

12. And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

13. Thank you very much.

Retrieved from http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html

130

Speech C

Robert F. Kennedy

The Mindless Menace of Violence

Delivered 5 April 1968, City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio

1. [This is a time of shame] and a time of sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity -- my only event of today - - to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

2. It's not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one -- no matter where he lives or what he does -- can be certain whom next will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

3. Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

4. Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily -- whether it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law, by one man or by a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence -- whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children -- whenever we do this, then whole nation is degraded. "Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost."

5. Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and we call it

131

entertainment. We make it easier for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition that they desire.

6. Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. Some Americans who preach nonviolence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of rioting, and inciting riots, have by their own conduct invited them. Some look for scapegoats; others look for conspiracies. But this much is clear: violence breeds violence; repression breeds retaliation; and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.

7. For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books, and homes without heat in the winter. This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man amongst other men.

8. And this too afflicts us all. For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your home or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies -- to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and to be mastered.

9. We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as alien, alien men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in a common effort. We learn to share only a common fear -- only a common desire to retreat from each other -- only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force.

10. For all this there are no final answers for those of us who are American citizens. Yet we know what we must do, and that is to achieve true justice among all of our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of

132

humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

11. We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions, the false distinctions among men, and learn to find our own advancement in search for the advancement of all. We must admit to ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortune of another's. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or by revenge.

12. Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done is too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

13. But we can perhaps remember -- if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek -- as do we -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment that they can.

14. Surely this bond of common fate, surely this bond of common goals can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look around at those of us, of our fellow man, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

15. Tennyson wrote in Ulysses: [Moved earth and heaven,] that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

16. Thank you, very much.

Retrieved from http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkclevelandcityclub.htm

133