Rhetorical Appeals of the Romneys' And

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2016-01-08 Beating a Dead Elephant: Rhetorical Appeals of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ 2012 National Convention Speeches

Jette, Ashley

Jette, A. (2016). Beating a Dead Elephant: Rhetorical Appeals of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ 2012 National Convention Speeches (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25099 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2738 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

“Beating a Dead Elephant:

Rhetorical Appeals of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ 2012 National Convention Speeches”

Ashley Jette

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JANUARY, 2016

This thesis examines the rhetorical strategies used in the speeches of Mitt and Ann Romney, and

Barack and Michelle Obama at the 2012 Republican and Democratic National Conventions. It does so in order to gain insight into the communications strategies of each of the major political parties, and project about the future directions of The Republican Party.

The method of this study involves a comparative rhetorical analysis of the four speeches mentioned, and examines the rhetorical strategies used in each of these speeches. Similarities and differences were observed between the ways that each speaker appealed to Americans of lower socioeconomic status, female voters, and Christian voters. Additionally, news media and other online sources were used to contextualize each speech, and gauge audience responses to them.

This study hypothesizes that in order to continue to contend with the Democratic Party, the

Republican Party may need to alter its rhetoric to be more appealing to diverse groups of voters.

ii Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support of my supervisor Dr. Tania Smith.

Her dedication to my project, and the consideration that she has shown for me as an individual, have been fundamental in the undertaking of this research. She provided direction to this project, and encouraged me throughout the course of this study.

I would also like to express gratitude for Dr. Michael Tavel Clarke, and Dr. George Melnyk for graciously serving on my committee, and providing feedback to this project.

Additionally, I would like to recognize the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

(SSHRC)/Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Scholarship Committee, and the Faculty of Graduate

Studies for the Queen Elizabeth II (Master’s) Scholarship, without which I could not have completed this research.

I would also like to thank my incredible mom and dad. They have each provided encouragement and given tirelessly for me to achieve this goal. My mom has shown great willingness to help with my son. My dad has always been my hero and it is because of his example that I chose to pursue graduate studies.

Finally, I would like to thank the love of my life Nicholas who has made substantial sacrifices for me to pursue my passions, and my beautiful son Israel who has brought so much joy and perspective into my life.

iii Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... iv List of Tables ...... viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Research Question and Social Context ...... 1

1.2 Thesis overview ...... 3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8

2.1.1 Table 1: Literature Review Categorization of Texts ...... 10

2.2 Studies Relating to the Romneys, the Obamas, their Campaigns, and their Ethoi ...... 10

2.3 Studies Relating to National Conventions ...... 13

2.4 Studies that Explore Identification in Political Speech...... 15

2.4.1 Literature that deals with socio-economic appeals and American dream narratives 16

2.4.2 Studies that examine the role of Ann Romney and Michelle Obama in appealing to

female voters ...... 20

2.4.3 Religious Identification ...... 22

2.5 Studies that examine voter demographics and tendencies ...... 26

2.6 Conclusion ...... 34

CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 35 3.1 Introduction ...... 35

3.2 Addressing the Research Question: Justifications for the use of Rhetorical Theory ...... 36

iv 3.2.1 Audience Studies ...... 36

3.2.2 Gender Theory ...... 39

3.2.3 Justification for the Use of Rhetorical Theory ...... 40

3.3 Rhetorical Theory ...... 40

3.3.1 Ethical Appeals ...... 41

3.3.2 Pathetic Appeals...... 44

3.3.3 Identification ...... 46

3.4 Rhetorical Democracy ...... 51

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ...... 56 4.1.1 Introduction ...... 56

4.2 Discussions of Methodology...... 57

4.3 Methodological Steps...... 65

4.3.1 Selection & Contextualization of Artifacts ...... 65

4.3.2 Categorization of Data ...... 66

4.3.3 Table 2: Categorizationof Data ...... 68

4.3.4 Data Analysis ...... 69

4.3.5 Gauging and Analysis of Speech Responses ...... 71

4.3.6 Projections for the Future...... 73

4.4 Conclusion ...... 73

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS...... 74 5.1 Introduction ...... 74

v 5.2 Rhetorical Situation ...... 74

5.2.1 Context: The American Economy in 2012 ...... 74

5.2.2 Context: Women in America in 2012 ...... 77

5.2.3 Context: Religion in America in 2012 ...... 78

5.3 Appeals to People of Lower Socioeconomic Status ...... 80

5.3.1 Mitt Romney ...... 80

5.3.2 Ann Romney ...... 87

5.3.3 Barack Obama ...... 91

5.3.4 Michelle Obama ...... 97

5.3.5 Discussion ...... 101

5.4 Appeals to Female Voters ...... 102

5.4.1 Mitt Romney ...... 102

5.4.2 Ann Romney ...... 105

5.4.3 Barack Obama ...... 107

5.4.4 Michelle Obama ...... 109

5.4.5 Discussion ...... 111

5.5 Appeals to Christian Voters ...... 112

5.5.1 Mitt Romney ...... 112

5.5.2 Ann Romney ...... 114

5.5.3 Barack Obama ...... 115

vi 5.5.4 Michelle Obama ...... 117

5.5.5 Discussion ...... 118

5.6 Impacts of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ Speeches on the 2012 Election ...... 119

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ...... 124 6.1 Comparisons between the RNC and DNC rhetoric ...... 125

6.1.1 Table 3: Research Findings ...... 125

6.1.2 Appeals to Americans of Lower Socioeconomic Statuses ...... 128

6.1.3 Appeals to Female Voters ...... 128

6.1.4 Appeals to Christian Voters ...... 129

6.2 Avenues for Future Research ...... 130

6.3 Conclusions and the Potential Future of the Republican Party...... 130

REFERENCES ...... 133

vii

List of Tables

2.1.1. Table 1: Literature Review Categorization of Texts……….………….…………………10

4.3.3. Table 2: Categorization of Data………………………………………………………….68

6.1.1. Table 3: Research Findings..……………………………………………………………126

viii

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Research Question and Social Context

The 2012 United States (U.S.) presidential election came at a time when the politics of the country were intensely polarized. The media consistently compared the election of that year to the one of 1860 which marked the ushering in of the American Civil War (Caswell, 2012; Parker

2011). In fact, the Pew Research Centre (2014a) published a study which found that

“Republicans and Democrats [were] more divided along ideological lines—and partisan antipathy [was] deeper and more extensive” during Obama’s presidency than at any time during the prior two decades (Pew Research Center, 2014a, para. 1). This intensely oppositional political climate had created deep wedges between the Democrat and Republican parties and voter-bases. Each party therefore sought to establish rigid identities—namely, core beliefs, terminologies, ideologies and traits—that defined its members. Rhetoric played an important role in establishing and juxtaposing these identities against one another.

The Republican Party in particular was at a pivotal moment in its history during the 2012 election. Many pundits and political commentators had come to question the direction that the party would follow in the future, and whether Republican candidates were doing enough to appeal to a modern American voter-base (Creamer, 2014; Sargent, 2013). Many young

Republicans have in recent years been reported to be more socially progressive (on issues including immigration, and gay rights) than older conservatives (Clifton, 2014). Consequently, the Republican Party has faced complexities in characterizing what constitutes a Republican in a modern United States. Some journalists and political bloggers have raised questions as to the potential future of this party and whether it can survive the ideological shifts of modern

American society (Capeheart, 2013; Costa, 2014; Judis, 2013). These shifts have been attributed to a splintering effect that has occurred within the Republican Party (resulting in the

establishment of smaller conservative factions including The Tea Party and libertarian groups) as well as the trend that has seen much of America favouring more liberal ideologies. In the years surrounding the 2012 election, Republicans themselves had even begun to voice concerns about the party’s future (Costa, 2014).

The Republican Party has historically been represented by the symbol of an elephant.

Could the Republican Party in 2012 have been “beating a dead elephant”? That is, could it have been forcibly attempting to continue to gain adherents through the use of outmoded rhetoric that had become unappealing to many modern American voters? If this rhetoric was outdated, what course would the Republican Party need to follow to gain new adherents?

An ancient academic tradition has been built around the analysis of political rhetoric. In modern times the study of U.S. presidential rhetoric has taken on a major role within this tradition. Many studies have therefore sought to draw conclusions about American culture and political parties based on the arguments and appeals that have proven to be compelling and effective in persuading voters. The rhetoric utilized by both the Democratic and Republican parties has provided an important piece in understanding the relationship that exists between politicians and voter-bases.

With the aim of bringing further light to the understanding of rhetoric’s role in creating identity and appealing to a voter base specifically within the Republican Party, I have chosen to conduct a comparative rhetorical analysis of four influential speeches made during the 2012 presidential campaigning season. My study has been framed around the following research questions: Which rhetorical appeals were used in the 2012 Republican National Convention

(RNC), and how does the rhetoric of the RNC compare with the rhetorical tactics used at the

Democratic National Convention (DNC) of 2012? More specifically, how did Mitt and Ann

Romney, and Barack and Michelle Obama, use ethos and pathos appeals and seek to build

identification with Americans in lower socioeconomic classes, women, and Christian voters in their speeches? What about these appeals was compelling to the Republican and Democratic voter-bases? And what did subsequent media, polls, news, and blog articles reveal about the impacts and effectiveness of these efforts?

While I have examined speeches from both the Republican and Democratic Parties, my specific aim in doing so has been to shed light on the Republican Party. I, therefore, have used the speeches of the Democrats to gain insight through a comparative research model regarding the Republicans and their rhetorical methods of identifying with their Republican voter base. In addition to examining the four speeches themselves, my research has included media and news sources to both contextualize each speech and gauge the audience’s responses to them. Using these secondary sources has given me a more holistic and contextualized perspective from which to evaluate the effectiveness and success of each speech in appealing to each voter-base

(Republican or Democratic). Using my findings, I have also discussed the impact of National

Convention rhetoric on the 2012 election cycle and hypothesized about the Republican Party more generally as it attempts to maintain public support in the future.

1.2 Thesis overview

I will now give a short summary of each of the thesis chapters that follow, and will outline their individual objectives within the larger scope of my project.

The literature review chapter of this thesis focusses on three subsections of academic literature that frame this study: literature related to American national conventions, literature that discusses political identification in the U.S., and literature that deals with partisan ideologies and voter habits.

The theory chapter of this thesis is broken into various subsections. I begin by identifying the elements of rhetorical theory which I have used to craft a theoretical lens, namely,

identification, ethical (or ethos) appeals, and pathetic (or pathos) appeals. I then justify my choice of using rhetorical theory to conduct my study by contrasting rhetorical theory with audience studies and gender theory, which are also relevant to the topic of this study.

After this, I explore, in depth, Kenneth Burke’s concept of identification, ethos, and pathos as effective and powerful means of persuasion in political speech. Burke’s theory of identification deals with how audience relate to speakers, or at least how audiences perceive that they relate to speakers. Identification is often built through ethical appeals (or appeals that enhance the character of speakers) because these appeals allow audiences to perceive that they share traits, ideals, or experiences with rhetors. For this reason, I have chosen to focus on the concept of identification and ethical appeals and how they have interacted in the 2012 National

Convention speeches of the Romneys and Obamas.

Additionally, my theoretical lens included pathos (or emotional) appeals made by the rhetors. While many scholars have minimized the role of emotional appeals in political rhetoric

(which is illustrated in the theory chapter of this thesis), emotions are strongly linked with human action, and therefore have had a great deal of influence on how voters approach elections.

Lastly in my theory chapter, I situate my study within what some contemporary rhetoricians have identified as America’s rhetorical democracy. This concluding section has allowed me to define the model of democracy which my study has assumed and assigns agency to the speeches’ audiences. The model of rhetorical democracy prioritizes speech-making within democracy and emphasizes the relationships established between speakers and audiences through this means. In recent years, the act of political speech-making has proven to play a more prominent role than ever before in establishing the ethos of speakers and creating identification between speakers and audiences. According to Hu’s (2013) doctoral thesis from the University of Sheffield, in the year 1950 the U.S. president delivered fewer than 100 speeches, as compared

with more than 300 speeches which were delivered by the U.S. president in 2009. Today’s democracy differs from past models of democracy because of the emotional bonding that occurs between audiences (voters) and speakers (politicians). Thus, this rhetorical model of democracy provides the most accurate depiction of the current American democratic system and aligns well with my theoretical emphasis on identification, ethos, and pathos.

The methodology chapter of this thesis outlines in detail the steps I have taken to complete this study. In brief terms, I have conducted a comparative rhetorical analysis of the 2012

Republican and Democratic National Conventions (RNC and DNC) held between 2012, August

27-30, (RNC), and 2012, September 3-6 (DNC). To begin this project, I selected four comparable speeches (two from each national convention) delivered by Ann and Mitt Romney, and Michelle and Barack Obama. I also chose three important voting demographics (those of lower socioeconomic standing, female voters, and Christian voters), who have historically been groups with whom politicians in American have attempted to identify and which played significant roles in the discussion surrounding the 2012 election.

The methodology chapter then breaks down into more detail the three steps I used to analyse the four speeches:

 First, I studied the rhetorical situation that contextualized my research artifacts. This

research endeavor included familiarizing myself with the speakers’ backgrounds and the

political and social contexts relevant to the speeches and conventions.

 Second, I conducted a comparative analysis of the speeches’ rhetorical strategies using

theories by Aristotle, and Kenneth Burke. These theories are enriched by the work of

more modern scholars who have analyzed recent American rhetoric, such as Longaker

and Walker (Rhetorical Analysis: A Brief Guide for Writers, 2011), Woodward (The Idea

of Identification, 2003), and Martin (Politics and Rhetoric: A Critical Introduction,

2014).

 Third, I examined responses to the speeches themselves, using political statistics and

online commentary. This process shed insight into the how each speech was received in

2012 and illustrated how rhetorical strategies strengthened or weakened the appeal of the

Republican Party in comparison to the Democratic Party during that time period.

The analysis chapter of this thesis explores the four speeches through the theoretical framework I have crafted by observing instances of identification, ethical appeals and pathetic appeals made by each of the Romneys and Obamas. I have broken the analysis chapter into four major sections:

 First, I analyzed each rhetors’ appeals to voters of lower socioeconomic standing.

 Second, I discussed appeals made by each speaker to female voters.

 Third, I analyzed how each of the speakers worked to appeal to Christian voters.

 Fourth in my analysis chapter, I have looked at the responses to each of the four speeches as reported in the media and blogosphere.

I have applied some causal reasoning between the rhetorical strategies used in the speeches and their impact on the 2012 election. In using causal reasoning, I acknowledge that rhetoric is not the sole factor shaping the American political climate and the ways in which audiences respond to the parties.

The conclusion of this thesis begins with a table and summary depicting the findings of the aforementioned analysis. This is followed by a broader discussion of the four speeches’ impacts on the 2012 election. To close, I have made suggestions for future avenues of research that might build upon this study, and have hypothesized the potential future of the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It is hoped that this study will contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding American partisan rhetoric and will shed light on the rhetorical tools used by each party in the 2012 national conventions. Additionally, this work seeks to raise questions regarding the potential future of the Republican Party and how Republican rhetoric might affect the party’s ability to appeal to voters in the future.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction This thesis chapter is dedicated to situating my study within the existing body of academic literature surrounding American political rhetoric. It also informs, contextualizes, and contrasts my research with the work that has been published within this vein of inquiry. I have grouped the various studies reviewed into four separate sections which are reflective of important elements that have played into this study and are founded upon my research questions:

1) Studies relating to the Romneys, the Obamas, their campaigns, and their ethoi

2) Studies relating to National Conventions

3) Studies that explore identification in political speech

4) Studies that examine voter demographics and tendencies

While the literature in this chapter is predominantly academic, a few biographical or autobiographical works have been referred to in the first section of literature because of their value in informing the ethoi of the candidates and their wives, and the ways in which my study has built upon these characterizations.

In the second section, I review literature focussing on the Democratic and Republican

National Conventions and how the parties have worked to differentiate themselves from one another by creating strict party identities. It also includes work that examines perceptions and views that have become accepted as tenets or characteristics of either party.

In the third section, I review literature that explores appeals made to in U.S. politics to people of lower socioeconomic classes (through the narrative of the American dream), appeals made specifically to women, and appeals to religious groups in America (most prominently

Evangelical strains of Christianity).

In the fourth section, I review literature that highlights audiences (or more specifically voter demographics and their tendencies). This section of studies provides insight into larger democratic processes and potential impacts of the topics explored within my study.

Thirty texts are reviewed within this chapter, and many others are referred to for purposes of accurately positioning my research within currently published academic literature. Roughly only one-fifth of this literature comes from a field of communications (including political rhetoric). Literature that is also in dialogue with my study has been published within the fields of political science, history, electoral studies, and African American studies. Additionally, a great deal of biographical work which has also highlighted political careers, campaigns and speeches, has been published about the Romneys and Obamas and has connections to my study. Only three studies (two from the field of communications and one from journalism) have examined the specific speeches that I have chosen as artifacts for my inquiry (Denton, 2004; Kirk, 2013; and

Medina, Sicilia, & Martinez, 2014), and none have performed the type of comparative analysis that I have conducted.

The following table demonstrates (by author name and year) which texts are reviewed in which specific sections. Because this chapter is organized thematically, at times certain texts are referred to in more than one section.

2.1.1 Table 1: Literature Review Categorization of Texts

Section Literature Reviews

1) Studies relating to Bimber, 2014; Cuccioletta & Milner, 2013; Reinhard, 2011; Saad, the Romneys, the 2011 Obamas, their Campaigns, and their Ethoi (4 sources)

2) Studies Relating to Blair, 2001; Fox, 2013; Kirk, 2013; Congressional Quarterly Inc., National Conventions 2005; Norvold, 1970; Wilson, 1996; Young, 2003 (7 sources)

3) Studies that a) Literature that deals with socio-economic appeals, and American Explore Identification dream narratives: in Political Speech (13 Atwater, 2007; Ferrara, 2013; Fox, 2013; Kirk, 2013; Mendell, 2007 sources) b) Studies that examine the role of Ann Romney and Michelle Obama in appealing to female voters: Blair, 2001; Bohan, 2012; Sheckels, 2014; Medina, Sicilia, & Martinez, 2014

c) Studies that have dealt with faith and appeals made to Christian Americans: Crosby, 2013; Selby, 2013; Siker, 2012; Smith, 2014

4) Studies that Egan, 2013; Green, Palmquist & Schickler, 2002; Guth & Bradberry, examine voter 2013; Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011; Skinner, 2012; Wlezien, demographics and 2013 tendencies (6 sources)

2.2 Studies Relating to the Romneys, the Obamas, their Campaigns, and their Ethoi

Many research studies of Mitt Romney have focussed on his Mormon faith (Baker & Campbell,

2010; Campbell, Green & Monson, 2012; Gill, 2012; Haws, 2013; Medhurst, 2009; Selby, 2013;

Smith, 2013). Some studies have also examined how his faith affected his ability to relate to the

American public in the 2012 election (Bart, 2012; Dowd, 2012).

While academic studies have steered away from focussing solely on Romney’s prosperity, public perceptions of his affluence were present in some academic works which more generally discuss his ability to identify with middle-income Americans and Americans who struggled economically (Miller, 2013; Murkowski, 2013; Trosky, 2013).

Barak Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and victory have been considered historically significant in American politics, and as such have been the subject of many academic studies from diverse fields including history, political science, and African American studies (Gidlow,

2011; Henry, Allen & Chrisman, 2011; Pederson, 2009; Plouffe, 2009; Price, 2008; Thomas,

2009; Todd, Gawiser, Arumi & Witt, 2009). Many researchers have focussed their work on political representation, specifically referring to racial representation in American government. A number of these studies have considered Obama’s biracial background and whether having a visible minority fill the role of president has had a significant cultural impact or significance in the U.S. (Clayton, 2010; Daniel & Williams 2014; Dupuis & Boekelman, 2008; Harris, Moffitt

& Squires, 2010; Henry, Allen & Chrisman, 2011; Ifill, 2009; Kinder & Dale-Riddle, 2012;

Walton, Allen, Pucket & Deskins, 2008;). Others have analyzed the charismatic speech presence and the rhetorical appeals used by the senator and young 2008 presidential candidate (who was in his mid-forties during that campaign season) (Ferrara 2013; Fletcher, 2009; Harris, Moffit, &

Squires, 2010; Mendell, 2007; Mieder, 2009). Many of these works have praised Obama for his speaking style and ability to connect with audiences.

The 2012 election, however, had a different climate than 2008, making it both a compelling and complex research subject. By 2012 a significant number of voters had become jaded and disillusioned with President Obama as their hopes for change under his leadership had

gone largely unfulfilled (The Associated Press, 2012; Long 2013; O’Conner, 2013; Yandoli,

2013). Many political commentators, and U.S. citizens, including even young American voters

(who had been some of Obama’s strongest supporters) felt that he had lost the spark that had won him his first term in office. Some journalists wrote news articles comparing Obama’s favourability, campaign strategies and policies between 2008 and 2012 (Bimber, 2014;

Cuccioletta & Milner, 2013; Reinhard, 2011; Saad, 2011).

Cuccioletta and Milner (2013) reported on how Barack Obama had dealt with a tumultuous time for America (having faced an intense financial crisis, and foreign policy trials).

They argued that he had made a valiant effort to reform healthcare and take on important issues including the legality of same-sex marriage. Reinhard produced a more quantitative news article that highlighted the disillusionment of young voters with Obama’s performance. The article reported that voter participation for citizens between the ages of 18 and 29 had declined by six percentage points (which was the most significant downturn of its kind in over 20 years) during the midterm elections between 2008 and 2012. Saad’s (2011) article similarly reported on this decline of young-voter enthusiasm.

Bimber (2014) published a scholarly journal article which also looked at Obama’s efforts in appealing to young voters. It did so by analyzing the digital strategies used by the Obama campaign team to gain support from young voters in both 2008 and 2012. Bimber’s article argued that while Obama’s campaign team’s digital strategies were effective in creating a dialogue in which young people felt they could participate, it was also crucial to recognize that

despite the hopes of reformers, political elites do not employ new communication channels with the aim of citizen empowerment, greater democratic deliberation, or any other normative goals that we might wish on them […] [but rather] The goal of the candidate investment in media tools is to win elections (Bimber, 2014, pp. 146-147).

While this argument may sound bleak, it created a relevant reminder that campaigns are meticulously strategized with a single goal in mind, namely, that of victory.

Other scholars have conducted comparative research examining the platforms, histories and campaigns of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama (Alstin, 2012; Holder, 2012; Johnson &

Morrissey, 2012; Kelly, 2012). In situating this thesis, it is important to note that the majority of work that has been published in this comparative vein has dealt more with policy issues than it has with rhetoric or the subject of voter identity.

2.3 Studies Relating to National Conventions

The National Conventions of the Democratic and Republican parties have historically served as the basis for many academic studies (Blair, 2001; Norvold, 1970; Wilson, 1996). Some scholars have focussed on single convention years (Blair, 2001; Nordvold, 1970), while others have chosen to compare rhetoric and other elements of conventions over time (Congressional

Quarterly Inc., 2005; Fox, 2013; Young, 2003). Blair’s, Norvold’s, and Wilson’s works, for example, each featured important historical speeches made to the RNC and DNC and discussed the tradition of the National Conventions. They also addressed how specific speeches (including ones delivered by Eleanor Roosevelt and Jesse Jackson) have shaped not only U.S. political parties, but have also helped to define the roles of minorities and first ladies in American politics.

Fox’s and Young’s works, and the “National party conventions 1831-2004” article by

Congressional Quarterly Inc. (2005), each focussed on how various convention cycles differed from one another. Young and Fox each did so by considering Reverend Jesse Jackson’s various addresses to the DNC (over multiple campaign cycles) and how they may have affected or been affected by race relations in the United States. Congressional Quarterly Inc.’s piece has served as a more general overview of the national conventions over their history.

Kirk’s (2013) PhD dissertation (published through the University of Kansas) is of particular relevance to my study. Focussing on rhetoric and Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign,

Kirk’s work helped to inform my study with regard to both Republican Party ideology and Mitt

Romney as a candidate. The dissertation explored four rhetorical events including Mitt

Romney’s RNC acceptance speech that I have also analyzed.

Drawing upon public opinion polls and newspaper articles that outlined the political climate of the 2012 campaign, Kirk’s (2013) dissertation expounded upon the rhetorical situation and circumstances that surrounded Romney’s RNC nomination acceptance speech. The themes discussed by Kirk overlap with some of the topics explored in this thesis. Kirk’s dissertation highlighted the importance of American dream narratives within Romney’s speech and also discussed Mitt’s efforts to appeal to female voters. Kirk’s work established that many of

Romney’s appeals proved deficient because of his struggles to connect with and relate to average

Americans. I discuss Kirk’s findings in greater detail in the analysis chapter of this thesis.

Kirk’s core conclusion was that “ideological constraints prevented Mitt Romney from adequately developing substantive or flexible policy arguments during the course of the election”

(Kirk, 2013, p. iii). The dissertation’s focus relied heavily on investigating why Romney was unable to sway voters to elect him as president, and it discussed why swing voters might or might not have been persuaded to support Romney based on his arguments. While the question of appealing to swing voters is present in my own work, I have sought to focus more closely on how the Romneys and the Obamas sought to identify with members of their respective party- bases, and what identifying features have become commonly accepted pieces of the narratives and ideologies surrounding each party.

Congressional Quarterly Inc., an imprint of a SAGE Publications company that prominently reports on the U.S. congress, released a book in 2005 dealing with American

national conventions and their historic role in U.S. politics. The book, titled “National Party

Conventions 1831-2004” delved into the evolution of these rallies. It also provided a summary of the national party conventions between 1831 and 2004. The work made a significant effort to expound party platforms and how their positions have shifted or developed over time. The book also established party conventions as playing a major part in U.S. elections. While this text is a historical resource, its assertion that “conventions have evolved in the modern era into carefully choreographed televised events aimed to market the party's ticket and programs” (Congressional

Quarterly Inc., 2005, Summary) serves to justify my selection of artifacts as being relevant, and as having wide influence in U.S. elections. Additionally, the book tied the concept of national conventions to a greater concept of modern democracy. My theory chapter also makes this connection by labelling modern American democracy as a “rhetorical democracy” and linking public speech-acts to the political deliberation process in the U.S.

2.4 Studies that Explore Identification in Political Speech

This group of literature consists of works that discuss identification between specific demographics of the American public and the Romneys or Obamas. In this context, identification refers to how orators attempt to establish commonality between themselves and their audiences through rhetoric. Identification is strongly linked to ethos appeals. Some of the studies mentioned above (including Kirk’s) discussed relatability and could also have been categorized here; however, I have grouped the studies in ways that provided the greatest clarity for this review, and by how they informed and were in dialogue with my research.

There are three subsections of work within this category which each support an element of my research question:

1) Literature that deals with appeals made to Americans of middle or lower

socioeconomic standings, or appeals which rely on American dream narratives as they

relate to the lives Romneys and Obamas

2) Studies that examine the Romneys’ and Obamas’ attempts to appeal to female voters

3) Studies that have dealt with faith and appeals made to Christian Americans and how

religious affiliation has affected identification between candidates and voters.

2.4.1 Literature that deals with socio-economic appeals and American dream narratives

Narratives of the American dream have historically played an important part in American politics and speeches. This type of narrative involves victory over adversity, and generally assumes economic scarcity that is transformed into prosperity. In this section I will be reviewing literature that has discussed narratives of the American dream. By this I refer to literature that has related the lives of each of the candidates to the American dream rather than literature that has dealt with policies or political strategies that might benefit Americans who struggle in a social or economic sense. I have chosen to examine this type of literature because it analyses the establishment of candidates’ ethoi and their ability to identify with low-income Americans, as I have also done in my research. American dream narratives paint pictures of what the candidates have each been through and make these histories relatable to other Americans who are struggling or have struggled in the past.

In this section I have also included literature that has analyzed race and voter affiliation of African American voters in the context of identification and ethical appeals. I have done so because many studies about American dream narratives overlap thematically with studies that examine racial identity and racial representation in American politics. While my study does not involve racial demographics explicitly, studies surrounding Barack Obama (from diverse fields including communications, African American studies, history, and political science) have

grouped race and socioeconomic standings of voters together, and my literature review would be remiss to ignore this discussion.

Discussion of Mitt and Ann Romney and the American dream is somewhat absent in the literature. While this topic was often explored through news outlets and the media during 2012, only Kirk’s (2013) dissertation, which was discussed earlier in this chapter, addressed these topics from an academic standpoint. Specifically, Kirk (2013) discussed Mitt Romney’s attempts to appeal to the middle and lower socioeconomic classes by asserting himself as a son of an immigrant father who had overcome adversity in his 2012 RNC speech. My research works in concert with Kirk’s to enrich the current body of literature regarding Mitt Romney and his attempts to appeal to Americans of lower socioeconomic status. This topic is explored in detail in my analysis chapter. There I demonstrate how both Mitt and Ann Romney participate in creating an American dream narrative using their life experiences.

Conversely, a great deal of literature has been published considering American dream narratives in the context of Barack Obama’s life and speeches (Atwater, 2007; Crusto, 2009;

Cuccioletta & Milner, 2013; Ferrara, 2013; Finkle, 2012; Fournier, 2012; Johnson, 2012;

Kloppenberg, 2011; Mendell, 2007; Rowland & Jones, 2007; Rowland & Jones, 2011;

Skidmore, 2010; Stout & Le, 2012; Sullivan, 2014).

Three works that have claimed that President Obama’s life has been a realization of the

American dream are Atwater’s (2007) journal article “Senator Barack Obama; The Rhetoric of

Hope and the American Dream,” Ferrara’s (2013) book Barack Obama and the Rhetoric of

Hope, and Mendell’s (2007) book Obama: From Promise to Power.

Atwater (2007) conducted an analysis of President Obama’s 2004 speech (which he made during his time as a senator) to the DNC, as well as the book “The Audacity of Hope” which

Barack Obama authored in 2006. The article concluded that “Obama’s background, and his use

of a rhetoric of hope […] for all to achieve the American Dream” would make a profound and positive effect on his likelihood of being elected in 2008 (Atwater, 2007, p. 128-129). Atwater speculated that Obama’s rhetoric of hope might empower African Americans. The article ended by quoting Jesse Jackson, a well-known African American clergyman; in saying (referring to

African Americans) "our time has come, if we keep hope alive!" (Atwater, 2007, p. 129). The article praised Obama’s rhetoric as being inspiring, particularly for black Americans. Atwater’s method of analysis was similar to mine in that she dissected specific elements of Obama’s speech and novel and discussed their potential effects on a particular demographic of his audience (black Americans). The analysis is brief—10 pages in length. It therefore could not examine in depth the rhetorical situation that surrounded each of the artifacts being analyzed or the responses of their audiences using blogs, statistics or news articles in the way that my study has done.

Ferrara’s (2013) and Mendell’s (2007) books from the fields of history and African

American studies both paint biographical pictures of Obama growing up raised by a single mother, and accomplishing educational and professional achievements against the odds. They each discussed these achievements in context of the American dream. Ferrara related this narrative to Obama’s 2004 DNC speech which inspired audiences to aspire for hope and change in America. I used these books to gain insight about Barack Obama’s ethos and also to understand how the narrative of the American dream has been related to the life of Barack

Obama in the past.

As mentioned earlier, literature discussing the American dream and Obama often also focusses on the racial demographics of voters. This concept of racial identification in the context of Barack Obama is significant and well-studied (Clayton, 2010; Daniel & Williams 2014;

Ferrara, 2013; Fox, 2013; Gidlow, 2011; Harris, Moffitt & Squires, 2010; Henry, Allen &

Chrisman, 2011; Ifill, 2009; Kinder & Dale-Riddle, 2012; Pederson, 2009; Plouffe, 2009;

Thomas, 2009). Predominantly the literature studying racial representation comes from the fields of history, African American studies, and political science. Few scholars, however, have examined this topic through a Burkean rhetorical lens, or even from a communications standpoint. The small body of communications literature discussing this race and rhetoric in

America seemed to focus on historic national convention speeches made by Reverend Jesse

Jackson (Fox, 2013; Ifill, 2009; Wilson, 1996; Young, 2003).

Fox’s 2013 dissertation Rhetoric of Commonality: An Afrocentric Analysis of Jesse

Jackson's Discourse and Performance at the 1984 and 1988 Democratic National Conventions presented interesting assertions about the rhetoric surrounding African American culture in modern times. While the rhetorical artifacts the dissertation revolves around are dated, Fox discussed how “[Jesse] Jackson's performance of gender and race identity functions in the dominant American political sphere, employing three representative identities of black masculinity” within modern times (Fox, 2013, Abstract). Despite the fact that my study focusses on socioeconomics rather than on race, the candidates’ and their wives’ abilities to appeal to voters were similarly influenced by elements of their ethoi such as their racial background, their wealth, their religion, and their gender.

The topic of rhetorical appeals to African Americans in Barack Obama’s speeches may have great academic importance. Despite this fact, this topic has yet to become present in the field of communications and might present an avenue for future research. Many analyses do, however, study voter demographics and address racial identity in relation to democratic practices. My research seeks to bridge the goals of some of these studies by discussing specific voter demographics, their tendencies, and also observing how the Obamas and Romneys appealed to them through rhetoric.

This thesis leans on the methods and theoretical frameworks used in some of the studies just mentioned. It also seeks to build upon these works in meaningful ways that shed light on how the narrative of the American dream, as well as the personal histories of the Romneys and

Obamas have been used to portray their ethoi, and identify with American constituents of lower socioeconomic standing.

2.4.2 Studies that examine the role of Ann Romney and Michelle Obama in appealing to female voters In this section I predominantly discuss studies that address the role of first ladies in America and how the speeches made by Ann Romney and Michelle Obama might have appealed to female

American voters. No studies (barring Kirk’s (2013)) were found that explored how Mitt Romney or Barack Obama appealed to female voters specifically. My work, therefore, brings value to the current body of academic literature by adding depth to this discussion surrounding the 2012 election and its rhetorical appeals.

Academic works from a variety of disciplines including history, political science and feminism have brought presidential candidates’ wives into focus and have discussed the role of candidate wives in developing relatable ethoi for their husbands as well as appealing to audiences’ emotions. For example Medina, Sicilia, and Martinez (2014) conducted a linguistic analysis of the speeches made by Ann Romney and Michelle Obama from the 2012 RNC and

DNC. The study, written in Spanish by journalism professors, highlighted the storytelling elements and emotional appeals made in each of the women’s speeches. The article discussed the role the first ladies (or potential first ladies) in presidential campaigns and argued that Ann

Romney and Michelle Obama served to humanize their husbands by telling stories of candidates’ lives and their histories using highly emotional language. Medina, Sicilia, and Martinez generated word clouds based on the frequency of words used by Michelle and Ann to describe each of their respective husbands. The words “man,” “work,” and “love” were some of the

largest words in both clouds; however, words that were more emphasized in Michelle’s speech included “country,” and “Barack,” which is largest of all (Medina, Sicilia, & Martinez, 2014,

Figures 1 & 2). Ann’s speech differed by emphasizing the words “America,” “know,” and “Mitt”

(Figure 2). The key finding in the study was that candidates’ wives play a key role in their campaigns. Spouses can act as people who know each candidate intimately and serve as advocates for them. Candidates’ spouses can also make important emotional connections with audiences as they do not need to focus heavily on policy or platform issues. My study builds on this conclusion that candidates’ spouses play a fundamental role in campaigning efforts.

Another significant study which highlighted Michelle Obama’s and Ann Romney’s roles

(along with the roles of their children) in their husbands’ campaigns was a news article written by Bohan (2012). While not from an academic journal, this brief editorial (published in the

National Journal) illustrated families’ roles in creating relatable portrayals of candidates on the campaign trail. Much of the article focussed on public events and discussed how the candidates’ families were perceived at these events. The article also discussed the media’s focus on wardrobe choices for the candidates’ children and wives. This emphasis on the female speakers’ wardrobes differs from the treatment faced by most male politicians and exemplifies some of the gendered elements of ethos within politics.

Last, in discussing appeals to female voters made specifically by female orators, it is important to note Robert Denton’s (2014) book Studies of Communication in the 2012

Presidential Campaign. It is a collection of essays that analyzed the 2012 presidential campaign through various communications lenses. One chapter of particular relevance is called “The

Rhetoric of a Campaigning First Lady” (Sheckels, 2014). It discussed the historic roles taken on by specific first ladies in the campaigning efforts of their husbands. It also provided several sections discussing Michelle Obama’s campaigning strategies. Sheckels’ chapter made its analysis of Michelle Obama based on 50 speeches made by the first lady. Quantitatively, the

chapter reported that Michelle Obama, while not unique in her campaigning efforts, has been unique in the length of the speeches that she had delivered. The chapter also suggested that

Michelle had given comparatively long speeches which focused both on personifying her husband as well as advocating for his policies. Contrasting Sheckels’ quantitative approach, my study uses qualitative methods to answer some of the questions surrounding how the Romneys and Obamas appealed to female voters in their national convention speeches, and what rhetorical tools and styles they employed to do so. Despite the different methodological approaches taken by Sheckels and myself, his work was insightful in understanding the role and impact of first- lady speeches and rhetoric in the political process.

2.4.3 Religious Identification To conclude this section on identification, I examine studies that have dealt with faith and appeals made to Christian Americans. I also review literature that has explored how religious affiliation has affected identification between candidates and voters. This topic was most prevalent in studies surrounding Mitt Romney because his Mormon faith was seen in 2012 as unfamiliar to many Americans. I have chosen to review this type of literature because my study reveals that faith-based appeals are among the most common used in Republican Party rhetoric, and these types of appeals have played an important role in the historical rhetoric of both parties.

A popular genre of academic literature has been dedicated to analyzing religious rhetoric in American politics. This is likely due to the cultural role of Christianity in the United States. In

2015 Pew Research reported that 71% of the U.S. population self-identified as “Christian,” making this type of research impactful on a large-scale (Pew Research, 2015b). Religion was of particular interest during the 2012 election campaign primarily due to Mitt Romney’s affiliation to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). His Mormon faith did not fit well into the stereotypical narrative surrounding Republican politicians (who have typically been

Evangelical). Barack Obama’s faith had also been a subject of interest in American public

discourse as he has been rumoured (predominantly among his Republican critics) to be a closeted

Muslim rather than a Christian. These breaks from traditionally accepted norms of staunch

Evangelical presidents (barring only John F. Kennedy, who was Catholic) sparked a great deal of literature from the media as well as from academics.

Many scholars chose to examine public perceptions of Mormonism and how voters would feel about electing a candidate who adhered to the Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) faith (Campbell, Green & Monson, 2012; Crosby, 2013; Haws, 2013; Medhurst, 2009; Selby,

2013; Smith, 2014). Most of these studies reported that for various reasons, including long- standing cultural and historical perceptions, many Americans would be uncomfortable voting for a Mormon president.

Smith’s 2014 article “The Mormon Dilemma: How Old and New Religious Divides Hurt

Mormon Candidates in the United States” contributes particularly unique insights surrounding this topic. Published in the academic journal Electoral Studies, Smith’s (2014) article argues against the optimistic view that Romney’s nomination is a signal of national acceptance of

Mormonism. He cautioned his readers that “election victories by minority candidates [should not be interpreted] as signs that long-standing social divisions have been ‘transcended’” (Smith,

2014, p. 283), and suggested that factors other than public acceptance have pushed these candidates into their positions of power. Smith’s (2014) study found that Republican voters perceived that Mormons did not qualify as truly Christian candidates and were therefore undesirable as party representatives. Democrats also perceived Mormon candidates to be undesirable because they viewed them as religious zealots. Thus, the article strongly articulated the complications of Mitt Romney’s LDS faith for American voters and posited that Mitt

Romney receiving the nomination was not indicative that religious tolerance had been achieved.

Smith’s (2014) findings have enriched my study by addressing how Republicans view

Mormonism and broadening the base of inquiry into also understanding how Democratic voters perceive the LDS faith.

Selby’s (2013) article “‘Where Mitt Romney Takes his Family to Church’: Mike

Huckabee's GOP Convention Speech, the ‘Mormon Hurdle,’ and the Rhetoric of Proportion” used a Burkean lens to discuss the concepts of division and identification. Both the themes of the article, as well as the theoretical approach to this data set are strongly tied to my study. Selby’s work argued that Mike Huckabee’s1 endorsement of Mitt Romney (delivered at the 2012 RNC) worked rhetorically to highlight President Obama’s perceived failings while simultaneously

“downplaying objections to Romney and minimizing internal differences within the [Republican]

[P]arty” (Selby, 2013, p. 389). Through this means Huckabee’s speech attempted to make Mitt

Romney’s faith appear to be less at-odds with traditional religions of Republican Party candidates. Selby’s work highlighted Burke’s concept of identification. This study has been relevant to my thesis in its topic of research, theoretical perspective and methodological approach.

Crosby (2013) conducted a rhetorical analysis of Romney’s 2007 speech “Faith in

America,” which was delivered to ease social concern about his faith. The analysis concluded that Romney used paralipsis, a rhetorical strategy, to address the issue of his faith (paralipsis refers to the intentional non-mention of a topic or issue). Rather than making claims about

Mormonism, Romney instead “attempted to transcend his exigency by expanding [the] scope” of his discussion to reflect American values rather than Mormon doctrine or theology (Crosby,

2013, p. 120). He did so by “fram[ing] the speech as an encomium of religious tolerance and liberty” rather than discussing his personal faith or convictions (Crosby, 2013, p. 120). Crosby’s

1 Mike Huckabee is a well-known Republican politician, and Baptist pastor

(2013) findings overlap with some of the conclusions of my study with regard to how Mitt

Romney dealt with the topic of his faith at the 2012 RNC.

Some scholars have also looked at Obama’s use of religious rhetoric and the role his religious views have played in his ability to identify with voter-bases. Siker’s (2012) article

“President Obama, the Bible, and Political Rhetoric” has dealt with these topics. Siker comes from a background of political theology, and thus, his methodology differs somewhat from that of communications scholar. Siker’s article thoroughly outlined Barack Obama’s ethos and highlighted why he may be seen as a unique figure in American history. It also discussed an intersectionality of Obama’s racial and faith identities, as well as his upbringing. Siker did this by stating that

President Obama is perhaps the most complex individual ever elected to a position of President of the United States. He embodies so many of the tensions that have historically divided the United States: black, yet white; Christian, but with an avowedly atheist mother and a Muslim father; a patriot, yet keenly attuned to non-Western perceptions of the United States, having spent several years growing up in Indonesia; a traditional family man, yet one who grew up in a rather non-traditional family; an idealist, yet pragmatic to the core. Perhaps the majority of Americans voted for him with the hope that he would lead the country successfully into the growing complexities that comprise our times and our world. (Siker, 2012, p. 586-587)

This paragraph makes a compelling assertion regarding the complexities of Barack Obama as an individual. The various intersectionalities of Obama’s identity positioned him uniquely to appeal to a wide variety of demographics through his ethos. They also, however, may have presented problems for him as an orator because while he was considered a member of many groups, some dichotomous components of his identity also potentially inhibited him from being perceived as a full-fledged member of those groups. Siker’s article aided my understanding of Obama’s perceived identity (as well as how each of the speakers worked to represent various

demographics), and his findings have influenced my discussion of President Obama’s ethos and the ability he had to identify with Americans from various demographics.

2.5 Studies that examine voter demographics and tendencies I now expound on academic work that has discussed how voters from various demographics typically vote, and how voter tendencies are carried out within the American democratic process.

Most of these studies are quantitative.

A great deal of literature has been published regarding voter demographics and voter strategies (Bafumi & Shapiro, 2009; Coleman, 2013; Dalton, 2006; Egan, 2013; Fried, 2008;

Green, Palmquist & Schickler, 2002; Grynaviski, 2010; Heidemann, 2011; Kaufmann, Petrocik

& Shaw, 2008; Levendusky, 2009; Lewis-Beck, 2008; Lodge & Taber, 2013; Miller & Shanks,

1996; Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011; Wilson, 2015). This section of literature overlaps somewhat with the previously discussed topic of identification, because studies of this type group voters into demographics (including different socioeconomic backgrounds, genders, and religions). Typically these works come from the disciplines of political science, electoral studies, and political psychology; however, some of this work does come from the field of communications. Interestingly, a great deal of the literature from political psychology mentions concepts also found in audience perception theories, and rhetoric.

For example, Green, Palmquist, and Schickler’s (2002) book Partisan Hearts and Minds:

Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters contains a chapter called “Partisan Groups as

Objects of Identification” which focussed on how voters find a sense of belonging within specific groups or their respective parties. While this book was published long before the 2012 election, its observations about voter identity, loyalty, and partisanship are important in situating subsequent literature that deals with American voters. The chapter made the important claim that

“Democrats, for example, are people who think of themselves as Democrats” (p. 26). The chapter further explained that Partisan identification is unique in that to be a “Democrat” or

“Republican” one must only consider oneself as such. It is not imperative that one vote for their party’s candidate or be registered as a party member to claim membership. Self-assignment and identification is the only essential barometer of belonging. Green, Palmquist, and Schickler asserted that because “The conceptual focus is not on identification with the parties per se but with Democrats and Republicans as social groups” that “valid measures of party identification must focus attention on these social groups and invite respondents to define themselves using these group nouns” (p. 26). My study revolves around the candidates’, and their wives’, appeals to specific demographics. When analyzing the four speeches in my study, it became apparent that particular terminologies and group identifiers are used to appeal to voters from each party.

Another relevant study reported on by Green, Palmquist and Shickler (2002) was the famous Youth-Parent Socialization Study conducted by Jennings, Marcus, and Niemi between

1965 and 1982 that measured the stability of partisan identification among voters. The survey asked 855 parents of high school children in 1965 if they self-identified as Republicans,

Democrats, or independents. Then these same individuals were asked this question again seventeen years later in 1982. Only 5.7% of respondents had changed their partisan affiliation after seventeen years. The authors highlighted that “when one reflects on the remarkable political changes that occurred between these two surveys, the degree of stability in party identification is truly impressive” (p. 39). Party loyalty and identity seems, for many to be more important than policy or ideological changes when determining how to vote. This book by Green, Palmquist and

Schickler has provided my study with a foundational understanding of American partisan identities.

Another point made by Green, Palmquist and Schickler (2002) that is relevant to the discussion of my thesis dealt with emotion and party-identification. Their book stated that both cognitive and emotional components are present in voter identification. Moreover, the authors wrote of this subject, that “Those who root for and empathize with a partisan group feel the

emotions of someone who is personally locked in competition with a long-standing and often ungracious rival” (p. 48). While the book did not discuss rhetorical appeals specifically, there is a strong and obvious link between pathos appeals and emotional responses of voters.

Understanding that emotion plays a pivotal role in voter party-identification reinforces the importance placed on how parties and candidates make their constituents feel through pathos appeals.

Law and Psychology professor Walker Wilson (2015) also discussed pathos appeals and partisan identity in her article “The Rhetoric of Fear and Partisan Entrenchment.” Specifically, her article asserted that fear is more impactful on audiences during poor economic times. Her study is pertinent to my research as I have explored the U.S. and partisan rhetoric during a poor economic time. Additionally, her discussion of fear-based appeals fits well into my theoretical lens which emphasizes pathos appeals.

Egan’s (2013) book Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts

American Politics discussed the relationship between parties and voters. The book’s central finding was that the American public has generalized perceptions about the strengths of each party. For example, Egan explained that Republicans are perceived to be the stronger party when confronted with issues of national security and crime, whereas Democrats are perceived to take a more vested interest in education and the environment. Egan’s book calls this phenomenon

“issue ownership” in which, for example, the Republican Party might “own” the issue of national security, and the Democratic Party might “own” the issue of education. His findings reported, however, that little proof exists to confirm the superiority of each party in these commonly accepted notions. According to Egan, parties merely “prioritize” issues by their spending plans, rather than policy-making changes. This study highlighted the importance of public perceptions and prioritized these perceptions over policies when considering whom Americans will vote for.

For example, while Republicans may not in reality be more proficient in addressing issues of

national security, voters’ perceptions that this is the case are often enough to determine how they will vote. Despite the fact that the parties may not be more proficient in the issues that they each

“own,” this concept of “issue ownership” played a role in the crafting of my methodology as I grouped statements and appeals from the four speeches I analyzed into specific issue categories.

It is noteworthy to mention that when I categorized statements made by each of the four rhetors, they did seem to promote and talk extensively about issues that Egan established were “owned” by each of their respective parties.

The Guth and Bradberry’s (2013) book chapter “Religion in the 2012 Election” contained a breakdown of voter tendencies based on their religious affiliations. It also provided insights into percentages of members of various religious groups in America who identify as Democrats or Republicans and talked about the persuasive strategies of each party. The chapter asserted that

Republican voters are far less diverse religiously than Democrats. According to Guth and

Bradberry this lack of diversity on the Republican side (which largely identifies as Christian— most coming from a Protestant branch of Christianity) makes for more simplistic strategies when attempting to appeal to the voter-base. The chapter asserted that while Republicans obviously need to appeal to “other ethnoreligious groups and unaffiliated voters,” they must also take advantage of their “party’s traditionalist base” (Guth & Bradberry, 2013, p. 192). The chapter described the Democrats’ strategic situation as being “more complex [than the Republicans’], given their greater religious diversity” (Guth & Bradberry, 2013, p. 192). Despite the greater religious diversity within the Democratic Party, it is important to mention that religious demographics are not unimportant to their party. These demographics can be observed when noting that “Obama’s largest single constituency was black Protestants, who supplied one-fifth of his total vote, matched by Anglo-Catholics and followed by mainline Protestants” (Guth &

Bradberry, 2013, p. 192).

While Guth and Bradberry’s chapter did not explicitly claim to be examining rhetoric, it did discuss instances of specific appeals made during the campaign to religious groups, including convention speakers’ uses of biblical phrases. For example, the chapter mentioned Sister Simone

Campbell (a nun who spoke at the Democratic National Convention), who labelled herself as her

“sister’s keeper” (Guth & Bradberry, 2013, p. 203). The chapter concluded by describing the potential impacts of partisan religious demographic divisions. In the chapter, Guth and Bradberry acknowledged that “the religious population is […] shifting in directions that benefit the

Democrats,” and that “the Republican and Democratic electoral coalitions are growing more distinct, experiencing a ‘big sort’ along ethnoreligious and theological lines” (Guth & Bradberry,

2013, p. 210). They described Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics as the “core” of the Republican

Party and stated that, “In the past, mainline Protestants and Anglo-Catholics were major forces in both parties, but with their numerical decline (and theological sorting), these groups provide much less overlap and common ground between the parties” (Guth & Bradberry, 2013, p. 210).

This chapter has aided my understanding regarding what ideologies and values are important to demographics within each party, and thus provided me with understanding into what types of appeals might be effective to voters in each party and why. Consequently, these insights enriched my method of analysis because they provided clarity in deciphering specific elements in the four speeches and demonstrated how these elements fit into party ideologies.

A compelling chapter by Wlezien (2013) called “Public Opinion and the Presidential

Election” included a study conducted by the group American National Elections Studies. The group collected data from 1952 to 2012 through surveys asking Americans the question,

“Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an

Independent or what?” (Wlezien, 2013, p. 173). The number of affiliates from each party has become more equally distributed over time, and most compelling of all, Wlezien (2013) highlighted the fact that “party identification matters more on Election Day in the present than it

did in the past” (p. 174). This is evidenced by the fact that “in 2012, 92 percent of Democrats reported voting for Obama and 93 percent of Republicans for Romney” as compared with roughly 85 percent of partisans voting for their party candidate in 1980, and about 75 percent in

1972 (p. 174). The chapter concludes that

Despite the growth of independents, the electorate actually is more partisan now than it has been in the last 40 years—there are more leaners, and those who identify with or lean toward a party are more likely to vote for the party’s candidate. (Wlezien, 2013, p. 174)

This finding is significant because it dealt with how Americans identify themselves, and showed that they have acted (by voting) as more homogenous groups than they have in the past. This book used statistics and quantitative studies to make very strong assertions regarding how

Americans make choices about who to vote for. It also reiterates the notion that, despite the fact that there have been more choices of independent candidates in recent elections, American voters have become more polarized and loyal as voters to the candidates representing the Republican and Democratic parties.

Sheets, Domke and Greenwald’s (2011) journal article, “God and Country: The Partisan

Psychology of the Presidency, Religion, and Nation,” discussed the importance of religious affiliation of U.S. presidential candidates to the American voter base and used the 2008 presidential election as a case study. The 2008 election was between Barack Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican). The study compared the perceived “Christian-ness” and

“American-ness” of each of these candidates and found that Republican voters prioritized these characteristics as important components of a candidate far more often than Democrats. The study also analyzed portions of the 2008 nomination acceptance speeches of Barack Obama and John

McCain and dealt with the rhetoric used by each candidate in establishing an ethos that would relate to members of their audiences. Sheets, Domke and Greenwald’s central finding was that

“overt embraces of God and country are widespread and perhaps necessary in today's presidential politics” (Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011, p. 460). The article demonstrated that each of the 2008 candidates made “overt attempts to address [their] faith, [their] patriotism, and

[their] loyalty to America, and did so in messages blending national and religious entities”

(Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011, p. 460). Each candidate quoted biblical scripture in their respective speeches and applied those scriptures to American ideals. This tendency to rely on overt embraces of country and God in political speeches is apparent during the analysis chapter of this thesis.

According to Sheets, Domke, and Greenwald’s (2011) article, voters in America are particularly interested in the concept of patriotism. They asserted that “perhaps no campaign messages are more crucial for presidential candidates than those that overtly bind candidates to the idea of America—to engage what might be called national identity affirmation” (p. 462).

This, they have argued, is because the concept of national identity is “the most wide-reaching of the collective identities among a national-scale electorate” (p. 462). It is for this same reason that

I have made the concept of the American dream predominant in my own research. The article features a study where 4,618 participants were asked to rate the “American-ness” and “Christian- ness” of McCain and Obama. According to the study’s findings,

Democrats said McCain was slightly less American and less Christian than Obama, whereas Republicans evaluated Obama as far less American and Christian than McCain. In numerical terms, the perceptual gap across candidates was five times larger among Republicans on perceptions of American-ness, and more than three times larger among Republicans on perceptions of Christian faith. (Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011, p. 472)

Additionally, perceptions of “American-ness” were more strongly tied to positive impressions of candidates than perceptions of “Christian-ness.” Both categories, however, were perceived as desirable traits for candidates to possess and demonstrate. Overall, the study found that “the

combination of explicit and implicit impression of candidates’ American-ness and Christianity accounted for much more of the overall attitude and vote intention for Republicans than it did for other respondents” (Sheets, Domke & Greenwald, 2011, p. 472). The priorities of partisan voters are essential to understand when evaluating appeals made to them as I have done.

The last article that I discuss on the subject of partisan identification is Skinner’s (2012)

“Barack Obama and the Partisan Presidency: Four More Years?” This journal article dealt with polarization and partisan identities. Skinner used historic statistics that tracked liberal and conservative voters and the frequency with which self-identified Democrats voted for the

Democratic candidate and self-identified Republicans voted for the Republican candidate in presidential elections. According to Skinner (2012), “recent presidents have increasingly relied upon their parties for support.” They have also “presented a more distinctively partisan image to voters and have found it difficult to cultivate support from the opposition” (Skinner, 2012, p.

423).

This article was published prior to the election of 2012; however, according to Skinner, in

2008 more self-identified Democrats voted for Obama than Democrats had voted for Democratic candidates than in the past, and more self-identified Republicans voted for the Republican candidate than Republicans had in the past. Skinner’s article concluded with a discussion of the implications of polarization and partisan presidencies. He purported that parties in highly polarized times become united in hostility one toward another, which makes compromise and negotiation difficult, and in turn escalates levels of polarization. This is particularly relevant in my study because it demonstrates that a trend was present during the timeframe of my artifacts, where party members were voting and acting as homogenous groups more than they had previously and could be viewed largely as unified bodies. This notion affected my methodology and how I dealt with the partisan voting bodies. While individuals’ views vary, the fact that

partisan voters often act as unified bodies allowed me to look at the parties largely as homogenous groups that would act analogously.

Through the literature it is visible that various partisan identities are etched through different demographics in America, and that much attention has been paid to understanding how voters process information (psychologically and otherwise) in selecting who to vote for and how to prioritize information about candidates. Understanding the demographic and ideological compositions of each party has had strong implications in how I approached my data set and the ability I had to distinguish elements of the rhetoric that were characteristic to, or representative of, each party. Moreover, gaining insight about the partisan voters aided me in identifying new and unique insights that would serve to provide answers to my research questions.

2.6 Conclusion As demonstrated in this literature review, a multitude of studies have looked at the Obamas and the Romneys, their lives, and campaigns. Other studies have examined partisan identities and ideologies. No study, however, has conducted a comparative analysis of the four speeches I have examined through the theoretical lens of rhetoric, or considered how rhetorical appeals have been made within these speeches to specific socioeconomic, gender, and religious groups.

The key topics addressed in my thesis are part of the ongoing scholarly discourse of

American politics, and my study adds a new and unique perspective to these topics. Additionally, in fusing the appeals made to three different demographics (namely those of lower socioeconomic status, female and Christian voters), my research provides a more holistic picture of how appeals to intersecting identities interact with one another than do many other studies dealing with these topics separately. Lastly my study is relevant and unique because in addition to analyzing the DNC and RNC speeches of 2012, it pays special attention to audiences’ receptions and responses to these artifacts.

Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction

This chapter identifies and outlines the theoretical lens through which I have conducted my analysis. I have developed a theoretical framework using three specific principles of rhetorical theory to complete this project. Namely, I have emphasized Burke’s concept of identification, and two of Aristotle’s three artistic pisteis (means of persuasion), specifically ethos appeals2 and pathos appeals.3 I have chosen these elements of rhetorical theory for various reasons, including their obvious applicability to political speeches. Additionally, these principles of rhetorical theory address issues at play in the research questions of this study through the importance that they place on the character of the speaker (ethos), as well as the emotions of the audience members (pathos), and the relationship between rhetors and orators (identification).

This chapter has three sections. The first section is dedicated to demonstrating how rhetorical theory best addresses the concepts and ideas that are laid out in my research questions.

In this section, I briefly contrast rhetorical theory with other theories that relate to my study, and justify my selection of rhetorical theory the lens through which to conduct this study.

The second section outlines and explores the concepts from rhetorical theory that I have used to conduct my analysis. Specifically it defines ethos appeals, pathos appeals, and identification, and outlines how these theoretical principles are used within this study.

The last section in this chapter establishes modern American democracy as a “rhetorical democracy.” Rhetorical democracy is a framework of democracy which assigns rhetoric a

“significant and […] delimited place in the complex history of democracy’s realization or renewal” (Biesecker, 2005, p. 228). My study assumes this political backdrop as a democratic

2 appeals that relate to the character or perceived character of the speaker

3 appeals that relate to the emotions of the audience

model, and my research findings presuppose the perspectives that it gives. For example, persuasion, as well as the possibility of dissensus and the tendency for societal groups to polarize, are all key elements of the rhetorical democracy model. These features of American democracy played significant roles in contextualizing my work.

3.2 Addressing the Research Question: Justifications for the use of Rhetorical Theory While there are other standpoints from which this study might have been conducted, rhetorical theory was the most appropriate way to approach the research questions of this project. This theoretical lens facilitated understanding of the rhetorical appeals that were used in the 2012

Republican National Convention (RNC) and how these strategies compared with the rhetorical tactics used at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) of 2012. Additionally, rhetorical theory allowed the scope of this research to include audience responses to each speech. Lastly, the theoretical framework used in this work brought to light this research’s academic relevance because it emphasized the importance of the timing and rhetorical situation that surrounded the artifacts of this study.

There are, of course, other theories which influenced my understanding of the principles and situations laid forth in my research. I will now discuss how audience theory and gender theory affected my study, and why I chose to focus predominantly on rhetorical theory for my study rather than these other two theoretical approaches. This decision to conduct my work through a rhetorical perspective has allowed me to maintain a more unified lens in addressing my research questions. However, future research could build upon my study from the alternative theoretical perspectives put forth in this section.

3.2.1 Audience Studies Rhetorical theory overlaps a great deal with elements of audience studies. While the central focus of my study is rhetoric, this thesis does discuss how the speeches impacted voters.

Therefore, in this section I briefly outline which elements of audience studies were present when

taking audiences (or partisan voters) into consideration. I also acknowledge overlaps between rhetorical theory and audience theory that are relevant to my work.

Hall’s (1973, reprint 2010) famous encoding/decoding model has been used for much of the basis in understanding the relationship between messages, their senders, and receivers within audience studies. Despite the fact that audience studies has served to observe and answer questions with regard to messages and their reception, these inquiries are not new or unique to the field of audience studies. Rhetorical theory has, for thousands of years, considered not only what messages are being conveyed by an orator but also how they might be received by their respective audiences. While there have been discrepancies in the field of rhetoric about audiences’ levels of engagement and agency (much in line with the discrepancies of audience studies theorists), a great deal of the work done by rhetoricians including Aristotle, Isocrates, and

Burke has provided a lens through which we might look at audiences that would enrich our understanding of how they may engage with or identify with texts.

One important challenge regarding discussions of audience is the question of agency.

Audience theorists often fall into the tendency of characterizing audiences in simplistic ways.

More specifically, the literature of audience studies has swung back and forth between the extremes of deeming audiences as either entirely passive or entirely resistant to texts they are presented with. In his paper “Active Audience Theory: Pendulums and Pitfalls,” Morley (1993) addresses this ever present pendulum effect which has often been debated within audience studies literature. He asserts that those who claim that audiences are entirely conscious and active participants in analytically consuming media ignore the obvious hegemonies that exist in society. He also posits that many of those who describe audiences as being either completely passive or completely active overlook one of the central features of Stuart Hall’s model of encoding and decoding—that is, the notion of the preferred reading. When addressing this

“pitfall” (as Morley refers to it in the title of his work), he states that “the concept of the

preferred reading […] acknowledge[s] the possibility of alternative, negotiated or oppositional readings” (Morley, 1993, p. 13) yet retains the school of thought that most people will interpret a text in a dominant or preferred way. When discussing partisan voter reception to the RNC and

DNC speeches in my study, I do so with the consideration that, while each individual has the ability to pull diverse meanings from each speech, the interpretation which stems from preferred readings are often dominant among audience members.

A further complication that arises when discussing audiences is that the composition of an audience may be disputable or unclear. We might ask whether the audience is only comprised of those who were physically present during a speech act, or instead, if an audience includes all those who might see or hear the speech act (or portions of it) through some other means.

Moreover, the complexities of defining an audience become particularly important when researchers intend to make generalized suppositions about this group. Without understanding which subjects are being researched, it is very difficult to make strong claims about this group.

The audience in my study are the American partisan voters. I include those who were both present at the four speeches as well as those who saw them online, on television, or read or heard about them in the media. I discuss how data and responses from these audience groups were collected and used in the methods chapter of this thesis.

While there are many connections between audience studies and rhetorical theory, rhetorical theory allowed this study to explore elements of the four speeches themselves in greater depth. It is primarily for this reason that rhetorical theory is more applicable to my project than audience studies would have been. Rhetorical theory provided this research not only a perspective that considered audiences, but one that emphasized rhetor and audience relations.

This emphasis allowed my work to shed light on identification between speakers and audiences, and aided me in understanding how identification can be achieved.

3.2.2 Gender Theory This study may be of interest to scholars who deal with gender and gender performativity because it examines two speeches that were delivered by women. It is important to make clear that while this research discusses issues related to gender (and women specifically), it has not been conducted from a feminist standpoint, and therefore does not employ the vocabulary or concepts that might be present in such a study. This decision to work strictly through a rhetorical perspective has allowed me to maintain a more unified research lens through which to address my research questions.

Despite the fact that this study is not a feminist analysis, it does explore feminine ethos and performance of femininity. Therefore, the gender identity of the speakers plays into the ethos section of my study (as do other elements of the speakers’ identities, including their race and socioeconomic backgrounds). When discussing gender, each party’s perspectives regarding masculine and feminine roles must also be addressed. For example the Republican Party boasts a more traditional view of society, and conventionally upholds the notion that gender and sex are paired and that each gender has specific roles and responsibilities.

Additionally, it is important to mention that masculinity is also an important part of gender and the theory that surrounds gender. Because my study discusses how appeals were made to female voters, women’s issues come up often. However, gender performativity is not limited to female ethos. I have also touched on concepts of masculine roles and ethos, and how these gendered ethoi were enacted in the 2012 RNC and DNC. While many significant questions surrounding political speech could be explored through a feminist lens, these questions fall outside the scope of my research, and choosing to focus solely on rhetorical theory has better equipped my work to address the research questions I have laid out.

3.2.3 Justification for the Use of Rhetorical Theory While various elements of my study overlap with the interests of audience studies and gender studies, neither of these fields was as well-equipped as rhetorical theory for addressing the questions set forth in this thesis. That being said, both of these fields could be applicable in fostering additional research and study around the national conventions of 2012.

Rhetorical theory, while ancient, endures in its relevance and continues to be applicable to contemporary artifacts. It facilitates qualitative research that deals with specific elements of speech acts, and also takes into consideration the rhetorical situation and the timing of a speech’s delivery. When considering my specific research questions, rhetorical analysis offered the most in-depth theoretical lens through which to view ethos and pathos appeals as well as identification with voters who heard the Romneys and Obamas RNC and DNC speeches.

Additionally, rhetorical theory can be applied with different emphases. I have chosen to primarily focus on the actual text of each speech, and only briefly discuss style and delivery strategies of the rhetors. I have made this choice to accommodate the size of this study, and also because my research has taken into account audiences who may not have been physically present at the speeches who may not have witnessed all the stylistic or delivery strategies performed in each speech.

3.3 Rhetorical Theory My study’s theoretical focus relies primarily on three specific principles within rhetorical theory, namely Kenneth Burke’s concept of identification and two of Aristotle’s three pisteis (Greek for

“proofs”), specifically, ethos and pathos. The three pisteis allow rhetoricians to categorize appeals as being either logical (logos) appeals (appeals to logic), ethical (ethos) appeals (appeals that rely on the speaker establishing a credible character or persona), or pathetic (pathos) appeals

(referring to appeals that deal with emotion). The work of many Classical and modern rhetoricians has utilized and been built around the three pisteis. I have focussed on pathos and

ethos appeals in my study because they are deeply powerful and because they have typically been overshadowed (as mentioned in my literature review) by discussion of logos appeals in the literature surrounding modern political rhetoric. Some of my understandings of ethical appeals rely on Isocrates’ theories regarding the subject, and I will discuss more of his opinions in this section. As mentioned, I have examined these types of appeals in conjunction with Burke’s theory of identification to make conclusions about how the 2012 national convention speeches of the Romneys and Obamas connected to their respective voter bases.

3.3.1 Ethical Appeals In rhetoric, ethos (or ethical) appeals deal with the character traits or the perceived character traits of the orator. Baumlin’s essay on “Ethos” within the Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (2001) explores the evolution of ethical appeals in rhetoric over time. He outlines the historical importance of ethos and the human character in rhetoric by stating that

From its inception, classical rhetoric has grounded persuasion upon a speaker’s knowledge of the varieties and complexities of human character. […] This knowledge enables the speaker to project a favourable self-image and to shape arguments in ways that accommodate differing audiences and occasions. (Baumlin, 2001, p. 263)

Various evolutions have taken place within the discipline of rhetoric in establishing both the relevance of ethos and defining what is encompassed by an ethos appeal. While some ancient scholars have designated ethos appeals to include only the character traits of a speaker which were communicated during a speech act itself, my study sides with Isocrates in ethos’ inclusion of the life of the orators outside of their specific speeches.

Isocrates (436-338 BCE) provided lifelong training to the politicians he schooled in morality and honest living. Baumlin (2001) quotes Isocrates in stating that

the man who wishes to persuade people will not be negligent as to the matter of character, for who does not know that words carry greater conviction when spoken

by men who live under a cloud, and that the argument which is made by a man’s life is of more weight than that which is furnished by words? (p. 265)

Furthering this argument, Isocrates stated that “the power to speak well […] is taken as the surest index of a sound understanding, and discourse which is true and lawful and just is the outward image of a good and faithful soul” (as quoted in Baumlin, 2001, p. 265). Isocrates’ theories establish ethos as being inclusive of all aspects of a rhetor’s life. This perspective on ethos as an all-encompassing trait falls in line well with the perception of politicians in the

United States. Accordingly, the relevance of various aspects of the lives of each of the candidates

(including their family life, education, and professional pursuits) is illustrated through their attempts to showcase their character through both affirming their policy positions and narrating their life histories. Of the many ways which rhetoricians have discussed ethos, my study relies on an Isocratean view of this principle because it extends well beyond the limitations of the speech acts and encompasses a holistic approach to each of the rhetors’ lives.

Lysias, an ancient logographer, shared in Isocrates’ view of ethos pertaining to all aspects of a rhetor’s life. In preparing speeches, Lysias would attempt to make “his client’s character

‘appear trustworthy by referring to the circumstances of [the rhetor’s] life and of his parentage, and often again by describing his past actions and purposes’” (Baumlin, 2001a, p. 264). This practice is manifest in the four speeches I have analyzed as each rhetor sought to gain the trust of audience through establishing their characters through narratives of their personal histories.

Martin’s (2014) book Politics and Rhetoric: A Critical Introduction revitalizes classical rhetorical principles of both Aristotle and Isocrates by discussing ethos appeals as they relate specifically to U.S. politics. For Martin, ethos appeals are characterized as “appeal[s] to the authority or character of the speaker” and are carried out through “explicit or implicit referenc[es] to qualities of the speaker” (p. 58). Ethical appeals are of particular interest when considering the presidential election because Americans are looking for someone who can lead

and represent their country internationally, and voters make judgements based on the perceived character of candidates. Interestingly, ethos appeals can be made in a variety of ways, one of which is through identifying with audiences. Martin discusses these types of ethical appeals as efforts to establish “why the speaker should be trusted, perhaps by listing existing accomplishments or by recounting his or her past experiences, family upbringing and moral values” (p. 63). Martin links this practice to identification by stating that “the point here is to bridge the gap between listener and speaker, to generate a sense of identity with the audience that assures it of that entitlement” (p. 64). This objective strongly ties ethos to identification. Martin argues that “sometimes politicians do this by claiming to have much in common with the audience, maybe that they belong to the same community” (p. 64). This method of appealing to audiences resonates strongly with my analysis, as a great deal of effort is made by the Romneys and Obamas to relate to the party voter bases by sharing narratives which tied them to their constituents through a perceived similarity.

In his book, Martin (2014) also points out that conversely, positive “ethos might be achieved by [candidates] differentiating themselves from the community, perhaps by indicating a distinctive experience or ability that grants them knowledge or expertise in judgement” (Martin,

2014, p. 64). Presidential campaign rhetoric is a field of study in which many complexities and nuances of ethical appeals are made manifest because populations look for leaders who they can both admire, and relate to.

I echo seminal rhetorical theorists in their emphasis of the fundamental role played by ethical appeals in persuasion. Longaker and Walker (2011) reaffirm the centrality of ethos appeals in rhetoric by summarizing the ways in which some of the most prominent classical rhetoricians dealt with ethos. They do so by stating that

Classical thinkers were quite aware of how important trust could be in any rhetorical situation. They spoke at length of ethical appeal. Isocrates contended

that character is the strongest source of persuasion. Aristotle said that if the rhetor could not forge an ethical connection with the audience, then he would never move them rationally or emotionally. Cicero likewise maintained that a rhetor’s character is central to his persuasive potential. Finally, Quintilian put moral character at the center of rhetorical education. He wrote an entire book (in twelve volumes) about how to make citizens virtuous, how to make orators trustworthy. Every one of these men would insist that the audience must feel a moral and ethical connection to the rhetor. (p. 232)

My study builds on the foundation made by these great thinkers which grants ethical appeals a central role in the effective persuasiveness of rhetoric. The Romneys and Obamas sought, through their ethoi, to appeal to audiences by presenting themselves as experts and leaders, as well relatable individuals who espoused similar traits and experiences as their constituents.

3.3.2 Pathetic Appeals In addition to the emphasis of appeals to ethos in my analysis, I have also chosen to prioritize pathos appeals. In their book on rhetoric, Longaker and Walker (2011) define pathos as “the emotion of the audience” (p. 46). They also highlight the fact that pathos appeals “motivate […] the audience to believe or to do something,” and also push “a person to take action” (p. 47).

Because pathos causes audiences to act, it could be argued that it has intense material consequences as it pertains to the voting practices of the American public.

Ethos and pathos appeals are strongly connected to one another. Green (2001) discusses this connection by referring to Cicero’s work “De Oratore” and states that according to Cicero

There is a reciprocity […] between theatrical pathos and ethos. The pathos, which the audience is supposed to feel, is validated by the perceptions that a trustworthy rhetor feels it first, but at the same time, the trustworthiness of the rhetor is established by the perception that he is capable of feeling pathos. The distinction between pathos and ethos blurs […]. (p. 561)

This reciprocity between the ethos of rhetors and the pathos of audiences further justifies my choice of pairing these two types of appeals with one another in my analysis.

This decision to emphasize ethos and pathos is intentional and out of step with other studies. Much of the literature in the field of political rhetoric tends to prioritize logical appeals over both pathetic and ethical appeals. In his book Martin (2014) discusses this tendency and challenges it by stating that

we often associate argument with a logical procedure that demonstrates, or at least indicates, rational truth. While this is certainly a dominant, perhaps even preferred, form of appeal, we should not dismiss arguments based on authority and emotion. A sense of authority, perhaps in the form of expertise or experience, is effective— perhaps even necessary—at times of crisis. Likewise, emotion is a powerful, if frequently underestimated, dimension of persuasion. (p.58)

While many assign logical appeals the heaviest weight (of the three pisteis) in political speeches,

I echo Martin’s assertion that there is a great deal of value (that is often overlooked) in discussing and analyzing ethical and pathetic appeals made in politics. In the American media, some have critiqued politicians by labelling them unfavourably as demagogues, or accusing them of fearmongering. This disapproval of politician’s methods of persuasion does not make these tactics any less compelling or effective.

Aristotle also emphasized the potential impact of emotional appeals. Green (2001) discusses Aristotle’s views on pathos by saying that “pathos is [Aristotle’s] term for those pleasant or painful cravings and tempers that lead men to act in particular ways” and added that

“pathos is his term for those pleasant or painful dispositions that lead men to change their minds”

(Green, 2001, p. 558). Pathos appeals have power to change the opinions and actions of audiences, and therefore have been crucial in building a theoretical framework for a study of presidential campaign rhetoric. Additionally, pathos appeals are deeply connected with how humans react and their views and opinions.

Ignoring, or downplaying, the agency of voters and the potential impact of rhetoric on their emotions overlooks the obvious reality that people largely act in accordance with their

feelings, and are not wholly rational beings. While some scholars may argue that logical appeals should dominate political discourse, this view ignores the undeniable material effects of emotional appeals, and considers innate human characteristics as harmful and unnecessary, when they are, in reality, both valuable and necessary.

3.3.3 Identification As addressed in the previous sections of this chapter, historically rhetorical theory has been most concerned with understanding the specific tools of persuasion (primarily building upon

Aristotelian concepts of logical, ethos, and pathetic appeals) and observing how the masses could be influenced through public speeches. More recently rhetoricians, including Kenneth Burke

(1897-1993) and I. A. Richards (1893-1979), have built upon these ancient concepts and moved toward a prevailing discussion about power relations, transmission of knowledge, and language’s role and impact on groups and societies. This continued dialogue among rhetoricians regards not only how language can be analyzed but how it can shape, and even create perceptions of reality, groupings, and identities. Accordingly, the theoretical underpinnings of rhetoric have shifted from objectivist to constructionist perspectives. Burke’s prominent theory, which he calls

“identification,” (from his book A Rhetoric of Motives which was first published in 1950) acts as the key tool in my analysis. Identification deals with a courtship between the rhetor and audience and addresses how the two relate with and bind to one another through speech acts. This binding occurs when audiences perceive commonality between themselves and the rhetor.

According to Burke, there are three forms through which identification appeals can be made, namely “similarity,” “commonality,” and “terms that hide division” (as discussed in

Woodward, 2003, p. 26). Appeals through the form of similarity attempt to establish that the rhetor and audience are like one another. Appeals made through the form of commonality attempt to demonstrate that orators and audiences have a shared set of experiences. Appeals made through terms that hide division attempt to mask differences between orators and

audiences and might happen through grammatical uses of “we” or “us” as opposed to “them” or may simply act to gloss over divisions that might separate orators from their audiences.

The success of Burke’s theory of identification is contingent upon audiences becoming what he terms as “consubstantial” with rhetors. Burke’s theory claims that “one person becomes

‘consubstantial’ with another insofar as their interests are joined or insofar as they are persuaded that their interests are joined” (as paraphrased by Zappen, 2009, p. 288, emphasis added).

Identification occurs when audience members believe that they are consubstantial with the rhetor. Burke suggested that identifying with an audience is the most effective way to persuade them.

In A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke (1969/1950) fused his ideas of identification and consubstantiality to persuasion by stating that

A is not identical with his colleague B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so. (Burke, 1969 reprint, p. 20, emphasis in original text)

This distinction that “he may identify himself with B even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so” (p. 20), is important because identification does not necessarily rely on rhetors and auditors reaching commonality, but rather, on the belief that commonality has been reached. This clarification is relevant in the analysis of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ RNC and DNC speeches because each rhetor’s portrayal of them self, their spouse, events, history, or issues were crafted with the hopes of creating identification with specific audiences.

When asked about how he would define modern forms of rhetorical theory in comparison with its more historic versions Kenneth Burke (1969/1950) said

If I had to sum up in one word the difference between ‘old’ rhetoric and ‘new’ (a rhetoric reinvigorated by fresh insights which the ‘new sciences’ contributed to the subject), I would reduce it to this: The key term for the old rhetoric was ‘persuasion’ and its stress was upon deliberate design. The key term for ‘new’ rhetoric would be ‘identification,’ which can include a partially ‘unconscious’ factor in appeal. (1969 reprint, p. 203)

In considering this description of ‘new’ rhetoric given by Kenneth Burke, it is important to recognize that the audience members have taken on an active role as agents within this theoretical approach. This emphasis on voter agency falls closely in line with my research. A key concept of my study deals with how audiences perceive their likeness to the Romneys and

Obamas, and how the four speeches delivered create or reinforce a collective identity in each of the party’s voter-bases.

Heath’s (2001) essay on “Identification” in The Encyclopedia of Rhetoric further illustrates the principle’s applicability to group and collective identities. Heath (2001) states that

Burke reasoned that identification allows people to share views they need in order to collaborate with as well as compete against one another. He observed that people use rhetoric to think of themselves as similar to or dissimilar from one another as they live in cooperative competition. They act in concert and associate with those with whom they identify and dissociate themselves from others. […] Thus, rhetoric is a contest of identities and loyalties, of coming together and separating. (p. 376)

The Republican and Democratic parties can clearly be examined through this model considering that they compete with one another by having party members feel as though they are similar to those in their party, and ideologically estranged from those within the opposing party.

Furthermore, the intense political polarization in the U.S. during 2012 might be seen as an effect of the cooperative competition described in Burke’s concept of identification. When discussing this type of polarization, Heath states that “the rhetorical situation is a battleground whereby people appeal to ‘us’ at the expense of polarizing against ‘them’” (p. 376). Moreover, Heath

notes that “as well as bringing people together, rhetoric can […] actually magnify feelings of estrangement” (p. 376). This practice might therefore result in greater polarization between opposing groups.

Groups often identify with one another through not only shared ideas or ideologies, but also shared practices, and behaviors. “A set of socially significant behaviors that […] mark

[people] as belonging to a specific group” (Longaker & Walker, 2011, p. 240) is referred to as a habitus. A habitus helps group members identify one another and find a shared sense of belonging. The notion of habitus was explored anciently by theorists including Aristotle, and also in more contemporary times by scholars including Bourdieu (sociologist).

Other scholars have also emphasized the importance of identification as a rhetorical tool.

Woodward (2003) cites scholar James Winans as having written the following on the subject of identification in 1917:

To convince or persuade a man is largely a matter of identifying the opinion or course of action which you wish him to adopt with one or more of his fixed opinions or customary courses of action. When his mind is satisfied with the identity, then doubts vanish (p. 25)

A major component of identification relies on building a trust relationship between the rhetor and audience, and having the speaker reflect the audience’s opinions, views, and experiences.

Woodward builds upon the theory of rhetorical identification by arguing that the persuasive power of identification lies in the way that an orator presents himself or herself. He does so by stating that “identification is a problem of message design, a matter of clothing one’s own views in a way that establishes their acceptability for others” (p. 25).

In discussing Burke’s theory of identification, I must also touch on the relevance of his concept of “terministic screens.” Terministic screens deal with the creation and defeat of various versions of reality through language. According to Burke (1990/1966), “Even if any given

terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as terminology it must also be a selection of reality: and to this extent it must also function as a deflection of reality” (Burke, 1966, excerpted in Bizzell & Hertzberg, 1990, p. 1035). By this, Burke meant that terminology not only serves to reflect or represent our world, but also selects certain “truths” while deflecting others, thus creating and shaping our personal perceptions of reality. The meanings or “truths” that are reflected and derived through language may vary greatly depending on the presuppositions and ideological stances of a speech’s audience.

While Burke has largely been credited with popularizing identification within rhetoric, it is important to recognize that “identification” as a term was borrowed and adapted by Burke from Freud’s psychoanalytic theory (as explained by Berlinski, 1997). Additionally, despite

Burke’s claim that the concepts of audience and identification were newer focusses to rhetoric, many older scholars touched on these principles, and mobilized them as part of their versions of rhetorical theory. For example Cicero’s writings tied pathos and emotions to both the ethos of a rhetor and identification with audiences. While Cicero did not use the word “identification” specifically, his writings do address the concept of a shared experience between rhetors and orators. Heath (2001) states that according to Cicero,

first [a rhetor] must feel the emotion he wants the audience to feel […]. From a practical point of view, it is unreasonable to expect the audience to experience an emotion that not even the rhetor can feel. (p. 560)

This shared emotional experience is part of identification, and ties in well with the speeches that

I have analyzed, as each of the rhetors attempted to appeal to their audiences by seeking to not only evoke emotion in them, but to also share in the feelings that they hope their audiences feel.

Isocrates was also concerned with audience reception and the relationship between rhetors and orators. Because he trained political students, much of his work was centred in understanding the potential audiences of his students, and projecting what might be their responses to specific ideas

and political rhetoric. In his paper “Textual Allusion as Rhetorical Argumentation: Gorgias,

Plato, and Isocrates,” Tindale (2006) describes “a central characteristic of rhetorical argumentation [as being] the way in which it anticipates the responses of the audience in the structure of the argument” (p. 1). It is because of this central characteristic of rhetorical argumentation that my study has emphasized how demographics (be they socioeconomic, related to women and women’s interests, and religious affiliations) play into each of the parties and their voter-bases.

3.4 Rhetorical Democracy Rhetorical democracy is a term coined in the book “Rhetorical Democracy: Discursive Practices of Civic Engagement” edited by Hauser and Grim (2004). The book is a collection of essays gathered from contributors of the 2002 Rhetorical Society of America conference, and its publication is indicative of the ties between rhetoric and American political practices in contemporary political and communications theory. In the introduction Hauser (2004) defines rhetorical democracy as “a rhetorical form of governance in which all citizens are equal, everyone has a say, everyone has a vote, and decisions are based on the most compelling arguments” (Hauser & Grim, 2004, p. 1). More than merely being descriptive, this theory has normative traits as it purports that persuasion is desirable in politics and allows populations to hear arguments, weigh them out in contrast with other perspectives, and select courses of action based on their perceptions and the information presented to them. Hauser (2004) also asserted that rhetoric is often “reduced from a method of public deliberation to the ‘mereness’ of gambits and ploys detached from material consent and designed to secure the uninformed assent of the governed” (p. 12). Rather than embracing this reduction, Hauser claims that scholars “can, [and] indeed must […] [reassert] the centrality of rhetoric to democratic life in the twenty-first century” (p. 13). The model of rhetorical democracy seeks to reclaim this central position of rhetoric in democracy.

Since its introduction in the early 2000s, the model of rhetorical democracy has been extensively compared with the more well-known and older model of deliberative democracy which focusses on the two central features of deliberation and consensus. One might argue that the objective of reaching widespread consensus itself is unattainable in a country as large and diverse as the United States, and illustrates an insurmountable flaw in the deliberative democracy model. Conversely the model of rhetorical democracy relies on persuasion and judgement of individuals as its most integral principles. Rhetorical democracy therefore grants a greater sense of agency to citizens than does deliberative democracy, and relies on what American rhetorical scholar McKerrow calls “the possibility of dissensus” (2012, p. 96).

This reliance on the possibility of dissensus is the first of four crucial principles of rhetorical democracy as outlined by Raymie McKerrow (2012), a scholar from the School of

Communications Studies at Ohio University.

The second crucial principle of rhetorical democracy according to McKerrow (2012) relates to the stark contrast between political viewpoints in the U.S. around 2012. McKerrow argues that “to function rhetorically, democracy requires a conception of rhetoric that permits the full play of human potentiality, excesses and all” (p. 100). This principle fits in well with my study, because I have examined the Republican and Democratic parties at a time of intense polarization. Polarization pushes people to excesses and thus, these excesses must be considered within such a democracy.

Third, McKerrow states that rhetorical democracy “entails an acceptance of the presence of difference especially as that difference may be expressed through speech that is incivil” (2012, p. 98). This third principle highlights the utility of rhetorical democracy when discussing ideals that are wildly contested, debated, or polarizing. Much of the discourse that occurs between the

Republican and Democratic parties, their supporters, and the media is “incivil” or combatively

attacks differing viewpoints. Despite these variant views, rhetorical democracies should attempt to emphasize the importance of allowing all ideas to be expressed, no matter how offensive or objectionable they may seem. This freedom to express ideas does not mean that ideas must go uncontested, but rather that all parties should have the ability to argue their perspectives. While some voices may be louder or more powerful than others, the American emphasis on freedom of speech is a manifestation of the attempt to allow differing viewpoints to exist and be expressed within their democratic system.

Fourth, McKerrow points out that “argument’s province, as a sub-set of rhetoric, is to engage others in a manner that may or may not be binding on others or, with evident certainty respond to the ‘common good’” (p. 107). Through this observation, McKerrow recognizes the free will of audiences to accept, reject, or negotiate meanings from appeals made to them.

McKerrow also emphasizes the importance of remembering that not all rhetors argue with equal proficiency and that we must account for style, delivery, and various types of appeals when considering how a rhetorical democracy is functioning and how specific arguments are being received by the public. My research acknowledges audiences’ agency, as well as their ability to be persuaded and make judgements based on the issues and information presented to them. Rhetorical democracy’s emphasis on persuasion and agency is in harmony with the goals of my work and sheds light on my reasoning for assuming it as an appropriate model of upon which my study is built.

Additionally, the judgement of audiences is critical to my research because, while the

RNC and DNC are not presented as a formal debate, the two conventions are pitted against one another, pushing audiences (or voters) to judge between the two parties. The judgements made by voters are highly emotional and can be strongly influenced through rhetoric. Deliberative democracy, which legitimates and justifies its lawmaking by relying on the public deliberation of

citizens (and takes a more quantitative approach to democracy), seeks to argue that judgements of the public are based on reason (seeking to remove less quantifiable issues at play – for example pathos and ethos). I side with rhetorical democracy theorists (and other scholars who have emphasized the roles of ethos and pathos appeals in political discourse) in arguing that audience emotions and their perceptions of speakers’ characters cannot be removed from the voting practices of the masses, and attempting to do so only results in ignoring crucial elements of modern democracy.

Martin (2014) also links rhetorical democracy to human emotion by stating that

a ‘rhetorical democracy’—[which he defines as] a democracy attuned to the function of rhetoric in helping to situate citizens in relation to the issues that concern them—may well be one that is more deliberative in nature, but it will also accept the role of emotions, however hostile or benign, in generating and sustaining dialogue. (Martin, 2014, p. 108)

My study grants weight to the role that emotion plays in aiding the decision-making process of voters in modern American democracy. Martin (2014) supports the idea that rhetoric

(particularly ethos and pathos appeals) shapes the voter tendencies of Americans, and that rhetorical theory is a good lens through which to analyze political speech. Conversely, he challenges the notion that rational choice theory (used by many political scientists) should be applied as a theoretical lens to examine voter tendencies. Rational choice theory is a behavioural theory which was based on the work of economist Joseph Schumpeter. Various political scientists have attempted to apply it to analyze voter tendencies. This behavioural theory, when applied to politics, purports that “individuals—be they politicians or electors—will make choices that enable transactions of mutual benefit to occur” (Martin, 2014, p. 90). In other terms,

“Politicians, […] seek the advantages of office, while electors seek policies that advantage them

(lower taxes, more welfare benefits and so on)” (Martin, 2014, p. 90). Rational choice theory minimizes the role of rhetoric and the power of persuasion. According to rational choice theory,

“individuals come to politics already largely persuaded of how they will judge the choices on offer [making] persuasion […] primarily a matter of clarifying or distorting the calculation, not of shaping judgements” (Martin, 2014, p. 90). Rational choice theory overlooks the power of rhetoric and is, therefore, insufficient for predicting voter tendencies in modern America.

Likewise, other critics of rational choice theory have pointed out that

people come to politics with a range of values and emotions that are often irreducible to calculations of utility – shared desires and ambitions, attachments to certain symbols and people – and with doubts and grievances that are yet to be clearly defined. The rational choice approach reduces these to one type of rationality and, in so doing, misses the depth and complexity of individuals’ social encounters, both in elections and in politics generally. (Martin, 2014, p. 90)

My study seeks to acknowledge the nuanced complexities of individuals as voters and the impact that political speech and persuasion can have on the voting public.

Thus, rhetorical democracy not only fits my study better as a model than deliberative democracy, it is a more true representation of how modern American democracy functions.

Deliberative democracy is a perspective of what American democracy might be like if elements like ethos and pathos appeals, and public speeches were deemphasized in the deliberation processes. Alternatively, the model of rhetorical democracy is more holistic in its perceptions and more appropriate for describing how American democracy has functioned in actuality during modern times because it acknowledges the influence of public speech on audience opinions and grants ethos and pathos appeals as much importance as logos appeals in shaping public perceptions. It thereby recognizes the potential complexities within American democracy and what factors shape American ideals and opinions. My study builds on the new tradition of studies labelling American democracy in this way and contributes to the investigation of how political life and rhetoric interact with one another.

Chapter Four: Methodology

4.1.1 Introduction

Rhetorical criticism has long held a part in the scholarly research focussed on American political speeches. It was therefore a strong and obvious choice to apply this method in attempting to answer my research questions. More specifically my study employed a customized method which primarily involved applying elements of rhetorical criticism to my artifacts, and then gauged audience responses to these artifacts. Additionally I discussed the potential impact that these four speeches had on the 2012 election and hypothesized the future of the Republican Party based on its rhetoric in the RNC of 2012.

The five methodological steps of my study stemmed from rhetorical criticism and were as follows:

 Step 1: Selected and Contextualized Artifacts: selected appropriate speeches and gained insight into the rhetorical situation surrounding these speeches by building a literature review, and reading news articles, voter statistics and trends surrounding the 2012 election.

 Step 2: Categorized Data: examined each speech (both by watching the speech, and using written transcripts) to locate specific phrases, wording, moments or pauses, and then categorizing them based on their likeness and similarities of theme.

 Step 3: Data Analysis: utilized rhetorical theory (specifically ethos, pathos, and identification) to make observations about the rhetorical strategies used within each speech to appeal to specific audiences, their presuppositions, and worldviews. This step was most important in providing answers to my research questions.

 Step 4: Gauged Speech Responses: used news articles, media responses, and blog posts to gain insight regarding how each speech was received by its targeted audiences as well as a more general American audience and how these speeches may have impacted the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

 Step 5: Projected about the future: used some elements of causal reasoning to hypothesize the potential future of the Republican Party based on its rhetoric in 2012.

As with most rhetorical criticisms, this study took on a qualitative approach of data analysis. It also relied heavily on the comparative nature of the data set to reveal major insights about America’s political landscape. To yield comparative data, some very basic quantitative practices of counting how often speakers mentioned various topics were applied to the four speeches.

As mentioned above, causal reasoning was used in hypothesizing about the speeches’ impacts on voter-bases. I acknowledge, however, that these four speeches obviously played only a small part in a very complex system of shaping voters’ identities, ideologies and pushing them to vote for specific candidates during 2012.

In this chapter, I proceed by positioning my methodology within the current debate surrounding rhetorical criticism. I later discuss the five steps I undertook while conducting my research and explain how I have applied the specific theories and concepts to my data set in order to provide insight and answers to the research questions upon which this study has been built.

4.2 Discussions of Methodology Rhetorical criticisms are intimately tied to their artifacts, and therefore must be malleable in their methods to provide insightful answers to specific research inquiries. According to the rhetorical scholar Zdenek (2009), “when methods are detached from objects of analysis and when the problem is reduced to one of choosing the best method, the resulting criticism[s] can be mechanical and unimaginative” (p. 188).

Rhetorical critics have gone to great lengths to explicate the methodology within the discipline of rhetorical criticism. It has, therefore become a highly developed field. However,

through these efforts to establish a uniquely rhetorical methodology, it has become apparent that no one prescribed method can be applied mechanically to every rhetorical artifact within this discipline. Instead, the strength of rhetorical criticism lies in its ability to be customized and applied with the specific considerations of each artifact it examines. This malleability does not, however, dismiss the accountability of rhetorical critics, who still rely on a type of heuristic checklist to maintain and ensure that their method is rigorous, thorough, and impactful. Later in this section I delve into eight questions which helped to ensure that my method maintained this standard of rigor and responsibility.

Because of the flexibility which exists within rhetorical criticism, a customized method was built around answering the specific research questions of this study. In the late twentieth century, many efforts were made to push the social sciences to reflect the natural sciences in their methodologies and applications. This trend is evidenced by literature of that time period’s strong efforts to create prescriptive, one-size-fits-all methods of employing rhetorical criticism.

Sonja K. Foss’ textbook “Rhetorical Criticism: Explorations and Practice” (1989) is a pivotal work (currently in its fourth edition) that positions rhetorical criticism methods in this way. It does so by attempting to provide simplistic terms in defining how a rhetorical analysis can and should be conducted. While this textbook is famed for its simple and easy to understand ways of categorizing methods of rhetorical criticism, this categorization lacks practicality. My study has broken away from the rigidity of Foss’ explanation of rhetorical criticism.

My methodological understanding aligns more closely with Zdenek’s (2009) journal article found in the Review of Communication which critiques Foss’ (1989) work for its lack of practical applicability. The formal methods set out by Foss’ text cannot be effectively applied to vast works without major refinements. For example, my work uses the Aristotelian principles of ethos and pathos. It also uses the theoretical concept of identification from Kenneth Burke. My research, therefore, does not fit well into being described exclusively as Neo-Aristotelian, nor

Burkean. Describing this study as fitting into either of these categories or even as a combination of both of them would provide little clarity regarding how the data set was analyzed. Rhetorical criticism requires not only critical thinking when developing hypotheses, but also in the very crafting of a method.

Rhetorical criticism grants importance and respect to the situations that frame its inquiries. Therefore, when discussing rhetorical criticisms and their method, Zdenek (2009) continued his article by stating that

A rhetorical view promotes a process of research whose elements (theory, method, artifact, question/ problem) are equally responsive to the situation and to each other. When methods are viewed as static, external, and detached from the rhetorical situation, the result may be weak, robotic, predictable, and ‘‘fateful’’ criticism (Black, 1980, p. 331). When viewed rhetorically, methods are responsive, flexible, and locally instantiated. They are more akin to social constructs that the committed critic places in dialectical interaction with other elements in the research design. Method shapes and is shaped through such interaction. The end result is more responsible, more invested criticism than the fateful kind based on borrowed theoretical and methodological commitments. (p. 208)

Through my customized method, I have set forth to conduct my study accountably and also responsively in the way that Zdenek describes. By examining my research questions in relation to my artifacts, I have allowed my method to take shape organically. In seeking to address my research questions, I have looked for answers that may not fit into a prescribed pattern that may have overlooked or mischaracterized elements of what was taking place in the RNC, the DNC, or their audience responses.

For example, when coding the four speeches, I viewed each speech and then later grouped like statements made by each of the speakers together. I then named these categories.

This method was a more effective and responsive way to determine relevant topics within my

data set than it would have been to create pre-set static categories to group statements into prior to watching the speeches.

Rather than merely attempting to identify and label particular elements of the four speeches as ethos, pathos, or logos appeals and calling my work a Neo-Aristotalean study, or simply finding examples of how speakers attempt to identify with their audiences and calling my work a Burkean analysis, I have chosen instead to use elements of both of these types of works, but have adapted them to answer specific research questions that deal with how a series of appeals interact with one another, and what effect they might have on the future of political parties (predominantly the Republican party) in the United States. This adaptation of theory made my method particular to my study, and allowed it to respond to the data set in a way that yielded nuanced insights.

While rhetorical criticism is methodologically adaptable, this malleability calls for a high level of self-reflection on the part of researchers. Jordan, Olson, and Goldzwig (2003) established this need for methodological self-reflection. Characteristics that may affect a researcher’s work might include cultural background, socioeconomic status, education, and political viewpoints.

Answering this call for self-reflection, I now acknowledge my personal strengths and potential biases as a researcher. As a Canadian, I am familiar with American media, yet am situated as an outsider to it. Because I am a non-citizen of America, I have no strong inclination to favour one political party over another. Additionally, as an outsider I have been able to recognize aspects of the national conventions that are part of an American tradition that may have gone unnoticed by an American researcher. For example, the tradition of having first ladies

(and potential first ladies) speak at national conventions has become an accepted tradition of the

American public. This tradition is not commonplace in other countries, and an outsider might be more equipped to critically examine how these speeches aided in the campaign process of 2012.

Young’s (2008) article “Thoughts on Malcolm Sillars’ ‘Persistent Problems in Rhetorical

Criticism’: Problems or Opportunities in Rhetorical Criticism?” provides rigor and accountability to the method of rhetorical criticism. Young’s article was written in response to Sillar’s critique of rhetorical criticism. Sillar’s critique presented the following eight questions:

1. What is the relationship between material and method? 2. What kinds of material are appropriate for rhetorical criticism? 3. Which variables are most important in defining the critic’s approach? 4. What is the role of ‘‘effect’’? 5. What is the role of ‘‘intent’’? 6. Is moral judgment part of rhetorical criticism? 7. What is the role of rationality in the assessment of texts? 8. To what extent does the critic vary method by circumstance? (as quoted in Young, 2008, p. 347) Sillar then argued that rhetorical scholars not having a unified way of answering these questions is evidence of a shortcoming in the field of rhetoric. Young (2008) however, argues that “such differences also account for the richness of the critical act when contemplating rhetorical or suasory discourse” (2008, p. 347). While I agree with Young, I also acknowledge that these questions must be carefully considered by responsible rhetorical critics. Therefore I have responded to each of the 8 questions as follows:

1. What is the relationship between material and method?

Rhetorical criticism has held a longstanding role in the study of presidential politics and

speeches and my artifact and method make for a natural pairing.

2. What kinds of material are appropriate for rhetorical criticism?

I discuss my selection of artifacts in detail in the following section of this chapter. However,

it is worth mentioning here that I considered Lloyd F. Bitzer’s (1968) seminal essay “The

Rhetorical Situation” in my selection of a case study. Bitzer argued that meaningful rhetoric

is preceded by a situation that requires action or discussion, and that it results in audiences

becoming agents of change. He did so by stating that

[Rhetoric] comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world […] In short, rhetoric is mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action. The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes mediator of change. […] We need to understand that a particular discourse comes into existence because of some specific condition or situation which invites utterance.” (1968, pp. 3-4)

This quote is reflective of my study because not only is there an ongoing discourse in the

media about the future of the Republican Party and its ability to appeal to a modern

American voter-base, but also, my study recognizes audiences as literal agents of change

being voters within a democracy. Additionally, having four speeches that were comparable

and shared a single rhetorical situation made them strong choices for analysis. This criterion

makes my artifacts a valid topic for a rhetorical criticism.

3. Which variables are most important in defining the critic’s approach?

The theory chapter of this study addresses and justifies the variables I have labeled as most

important within my study. These include pathos and ethos appeals, identification, and how

audiences interpreted the speeches I have analyzed. Additionally, partisan audiences are an

important variable within this study.

4. What is the role of ‘‘effect’’?

I have used causal reasoning to analyze some blog posts and media responses to the four

national convention speeches to more deeply understand their material effects on the 2012

election, and more generally on their parties’ futures (with emphasis on the Republican

Party).

5. What is the role of ‘‘intent’’?

The intent of each speaker in the rhetorical artifacts examined within this study can largely

be assumed. Political speeches are generally designed to gain new adherents and further

entrench current supporters in a party or candidate’s platform. Despite this fact, the speeches

analyzed in this study are somewhat unique from other political discourse including ads, or

debates because they are largely symbolic in nature. These speeches were offered to accept

party nominations and excite voter-bases rather than to comment heavily on policies or

platforms.

6. Is moral judgment part of rhetorical criticism?

Moral discernment was used within this study to analyze statements made by speakers and

their positioning; however, this study did not take on the burden of judging the speakers as

being moral or immoral.

7. What is the role of rationality in the assessment of texts?

While logical appeals are not emphasized in my study, I attempted to recognize if and when

arguments of the speakers were faulty, and understand what facts, or presuppositions their

arguments have relied upon. This question of Sillar’s brings up the role of logos in rhetorical

criticism. While Sillar is a critic of the rhetorical method, the question’s omission of pathos

and ethos is a clear manifestation that logos (logic) is prioritized for many researchers (both

inside and outside the field of rhetorical analysis). The question could be enriched by

including ethos and pathos in a researcher’s evaluation of how they approached their

artifacts.

8. To what extent does the critic vary method by circumstance?

This question encompasses the other seven questions. This study’s method has been shaped

by its circumstances. It is responsive to the specific elements and inquiries which it has

sought to address.

While the great degree of variance within rhetorical analyses was Sillar’s major criticism of

the discipline, this feature could also be seen as the discipline’s greatest strength. The fact

that these eight questions can be answered in a way that is specific to each study signifies

that the work in this field has the potential to be customized and enriched to fit the particular

nature of diverse circumstances. Each rhetorical criticism can be methodologically shaped

to highlight potential insights in that specific study. Sillar’s eight questions acted as a

heuristic checklist that aided in formulating and justifying the methodological focus of this

thesis.

My research has utilized a customized method of rhetorical criticism surrounding the artifact

of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ speeches to the RNC and DNC of 2012. This choice was

influenced by Young‘s (2008) conclusion that using a customized method “is less

mechanical, [and] somewhat more risky, but potentially more challenging and interesting” in

the results it produces (p. 348). Rhetorical criticism’s strengths of flexibility and

customization have made it an ideal method by which to conduct my analysis.

4.3 Methodological Steps This chapter section is dedicated to discussing the five phases of my method (which were mentioned in the introduction of this chapter) in the sequential manner in which they were carried out.

4.3.1 Selection & Contextualization of Artifacts Criteria for my selection of artifacts included finding speeches that occurred during the 2012 election cycle—a fundamental time for the Republican Party. The artifacts also needed to be representative of party rhetoric, be high profile events (with large audiences), and have a reasonable set of comparative speeches from the Democratic Party (ideally sharing a timeframe and rhetorical situation) because a comparative method was the only way to answer the research inquiries set forth in this study.

The speeches analyzed in this study were relevant for gaining insights regarding the

American political field, and voter and partisan beliefs and identity in 2012. National conventions are fruitful for providing rhetorical artifacts because they offer speeches that embody characteristic traits of the parties. The national convention speeches were more appropriate for answering my research questions than something like a bi-partisan debate might have been. This is because a bi-partisan debate is crafted to appeal to voters from either party, as well as swing-voters. While it is obvious that many people outside each of the parties might hear or see national convention speeches, the intended audiences for these conventions are either the

Republican voter-base or the Democratic voter-base. As such, speakers at these events choose to emphasize particular traits, characteristics, and ideals that are deemed important by each of the parties singularly.

According to Kirk (2013),

conventions are […] representational expressions of the party […] [and are] ideal sites for locating and examining political campaign communication, their reliance

upon competing rhetorical visions of the national identity and their ability to activate latent political affiliations place them at the intersection of political messages and audience persuasion. (p. 6)

This notion that parties can be represented by speeches made at national conventions is in harmony with my study and also aids in justifying my selection of national convention speeches as a data set.

After selecting artifacts for this study, I crafted specific and meaningful research questions whose answers would shed light into not only the 2012 national convention speeches and their use of rhetorical strategies, but also the larger societal impacts of these speeches.

When contextualizing this study’s artifacts, I sought to pull information from a great variety of sources. I deliberately chose not to limit my sources to news stations that were necessarily considered the most accurate. While this may sound counter-intuitive, there was a great deal of relevancy to this, because my study took into account the presumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions of the American people, regardless of the validity of these assumptions.

4.3.2 Categorization of Data After watching each speech and reading its transcript (from NPR’s [formerly National Public

Radio’s] website), I coded the statements made by the speakers into various categories.4 This

4 At times stark discrepancies arose between what appeared in the transcript versus what was actually said by each speaker at the national conventions. It is assumed (because of some of the larger discrepancies) that NPR published a written version of the speeches that was intended for a teleprompter. When such inconsistencies arose between the transcripts and videos of each speech, the videos were always prioritized as the reliable source because they reflect the ways in which the speeches were ultimately delivered. Additionally, every quote used in the analysis of this paper was verified against video footage and quoted in the precise way it was delivered by each orator.

process of categorization was important for organizing data and preparing it to be analyzed; however, it was not the analysis process itself.

I chose not to begin this process with fixed or static categories, but rather allowed each speech to take on its own groupings organically. I did this so as to avoid imposing my presuppositions onto the data. This process resulted in the development of the following categories which were shared generally over the four speeches:

1. Ethos – Biographical 2. American Identity and the American Dream 3. Middle Income and Economic Struggle 4. Education 5. Immigration 6. Healthcare 7. Women’s Issues and Female Voters 8. Love and Family 9. Religion and Religious References 10. Democratic Party Principles 11. Republican Party Principles 12. Gay Rights 13. Messages to Opposing Party Voters 14. Foreign Policy and National Security

Not every category listed here was present in, or relevant to, every speech. For example, the topic of gay rights was not addressed in the Romneys’ speeches. This omission is also important to my analysis, and will be addressed in that chapter. After grouping quotes from each speech into these categories of recurring topics, I then organized these groupings into the broader categories of 1) appeals made to individuals of lower socioeconomic status, 2) appeals made to female voters, and 3) appeals made to Christian voters. I entered my findings into a spreadsheet

which included quotations from each speaker, the time that these statements were delivered within their speeches, the rhetorical tools present in each quotation, and a space for additional notes. The spreadsheet grouped data together in the following way:

4.3.3 Table 2

Categorization of Data

Broad Appeal Category Specific Appeal Topic a) Appeals Made to Individuals of Lower 1. Ethos – Biographical Socioeconomic Status 2. American Identity and the American Dream 3. Middle Income and Economic Struggle 4. Education 5. Immigration 6. Healthcare

b) Appeals Made to Female Voters 7. Women’s Issues and Female Voters 8. Love and Family

c) Appeals Made to Christian Voters 9. Religion and Religious References

d) Additional Data 10. Democratic Party Principles 11. Republican Party Principles 12. Gay Rights 13. Messages to Opposing Party Voters 14. Foreign Policy and National Security

Some quotations did not fit well into any category while others were repeated in multiple locations. This organizational process illuminated the contrast between the speeches’ references to (or omissions of) various topics.

For example (as mentioned earlier), I coded both of the Romneys’ speeches without creating a category for statements made about gay rights, because neither of their remarks addressed this topic. It was not until my coding of the Obamas’ speeches that I added such a category because statements made in their remarks touched on gay rights numerous times. The lack of mention of gay rights at the RNC may shed insights into Republican perspectives on gay rights, despite the fact that they did not verbally articulate that stance. For this reason, at times the speeches were analyzed within this study based on not only what speakers mentioned, but on the topics they avoided.

Coding the data into a spreadsheet also allowed me to keep track of roughly how many statements were made by each speaker regarding specific topics. It was difficult to assign certain topics hard numbers because some statements made were not overt or only addressed topics tangentially; however, this labeling provided my study an estimation of the relevancy of certain topics within each speech.

4.3.4 Data Analysis After coding the four speeches, I selected statements that were most indicative of various types of appeals, and made noteworthy use of rhetorical tools. I analyzed these statements by applying my theoretical lens of rhetoric (specifically ethos, pathos, and identification) to them, and compared them with the statements made by their spouses and the speakers at the opposing party’s convention. This process of analysis was the most crucial to my study as it provided answers to the research questions around which this thesis was built.

Rhetorical criticism was applied to each of the four artifacts with particular consideration paid to understanding how each of the speakers and speeches appealed to Americans of lower socioeconomic standing, female voters, and Christian voters. Because I was most interested in ethos appeals, pathos appeals, and identification, special attention was given to looking for these speech elements within the artifacts.

Some indicators that identification was being used within the speeches were speakers’ use of inclusionary language and the telling of personal histories that would likely resonate with voter-bases. Personal narratives were also often tied to ethical appeals, as the speakers tried to characterize themselves or their spouses through these histories. When looking to identify pathos appeals with the speeches, I was attentive to anything that might evoke emotion within respective audiences (whether through narrative, projections of the future, or praise of the audiences).

For example, because of Ann Romney’s ethos (more specifically, her gender identity), she was better situated than her husband Mitt Romney to identify with women. Ann Romney was able to use what Woodward calls “identification through grammatical […] forms” (p. 26) by using terms like “we” to appeal to female voters. When discussing the plight of American women and the challenges they face in taking care of family, Ann Romney said “We're the mothers. We're the wives. We're the grandmothers. We're the big sisters. We're the little sisters and we are the daughters” (Republican National Convention, 2012, 5:24-5:33). This demonstrated how Ann Romney positioned herself as a member of a group within her audience and attempted to erase or overlook divisions that may have separate her from female voters.

By establishing herself as a member of the group early on, Ann Romney garnered the trust of her audience. Longaker and Walker (2011) emphasize the importance of trust in rhetoric by stating that the “orator [must be perceived as] trustworthy” (p. 232) to be persuasive. After

identifying with her audience, and then gaining their trust, Ann Romney could make statements about the priorities and interests of women as a group and encourage them to vote for Mitt

Romney.

When comparing Ann Romney’s statements with the other speakers, I looked for the ways in which each of them attempted to use similar or different strategies to appeal to women. I then and compared and contrasted these types of appeals.

I followed these same procedures of analyzing statements and phraseology of the speakers in the context of socio-economic appeals, as well as appeals to Christian voters. Major conclusions about how each party appealed to these demographics could only be made after completing my analysis and comparing the findings that were garnered from each speech.

4.3.5 Gauging and Analysis of Speech Responses After completing the analysis of my primary dataset (the four speeches), I used news articles, media responses, and blog posts to gain insight regarding how each speech was received by its target audience as well as a more general American audience. I then discussed how these speeches may have shaped the 2012 election. This analysis was secondary to my main research

(which was an analysis of the speeches themselves), but provided this study with a larger scope and demonstrated the impact of the national convention rhetoric of 2012.

In discussing audience reception in my study, I have done so with the consideration that while each audience member has the capacity to pull diverse meanings from each speech, preferred (or dominant) readings exist, and many audience members will experience similar responses to artifacts.

My choice to include blog posts, and articles from Fox News and The Blaze (a news source owned and operated by former Fox News contributor Glenn Beck) which are often criticized for favouring conservative positions, was intentional. At the time of this research, these

outlets were among the most common sources of news for ideologically conservative Americans

(Engel, 2014). And despite the criticisms launched against them, Fox News was rated America’s most trusted national news channel in 2015. A national poll found that 29% of Americans surveyed stated that they trusted Fox News most of all cable or broadcast news coverage

(Shwarz, The Washington Post, 2015). When Republican Americans were surveyed, the number of them who trusted Fox News most jumped to 58%. Additionally, when considering sheer viewership, in 2013 Fox News was reported as being the most popular television news source

(Saad, Gallup, 2013). Television news sources topped online news and radio broadcasts in popularity (Saad, Gallup, 2013).

My decision to incorporate data from Fox News, The Blaze, and other popular online blogs and website (including The Washington Times, The New York Times, and The Huffington

Post) falls in line with ideas put forth in Hauser and McClellan’s (2009) article “Vernacular

Rhetoric and Social Movements: Performances of Resistance in the Rhetoric of the Everyday.”

In that article, Hauser and McClellan argue that public discourse should not be ignored when attempting to understand a societal sphere. Their method

provides a more sensitive rhetorical calibration of public opinion formation: it widens the scope of rhetoric to include instances of vernacular exchange, directs attention to collective reasoning processes as they are disclosed in vernacular exchanges, locates public opinion in processes of creating common understanding, and regard the dialogue of vernacular talk as a significant way by which public opinion is developed. (Hauser & McClellan, 2009, p. 29)

As mentioned earlier, in some ways (including popularity), Fox News acts as a dominant voice.

Despite this, however, it does not go uncriticised. Whether or not blog posts, Fox News reports or other public discourse are written to the highest standard or accepted as being reliable (not only by public but by experts) is somewhat moot if a study is considering only the speeches’ impact or how these media outlets depicted the impact of the speeches. The veracity of such

sources does not dictate or affect their capacity to have material effects on the American public.

These types of secondary sources allowed me, through this study, to observe and hypothesize about the causal effects and impacts of the national convention speeches in 2012 and further into the future.

4.3.6 Projections for the Future In the conclusion of this thesis I have used the data gathered from my analyses of the speeches and the responses to them to posit about the future of the Republican Party. These types of hypotheses are common within rhetorical criticisms, as the discipline aims to responsibly comment on the trends and movements within societies.

In applying causal reasoning to the data of this study and making projections about the future of the Republican Party, I acknowledge that the four speeches I have analyzed played only a small role in the societal trends of the American political landscape of 2012. Despite knowing that they are only one piece of a large network with many variables, I also assert that the intent of rhetoric is societal change, and speeches like the four I have selected do have material effects in society. I therefore, with acknowledgement of my limitations, used the sources at my disposal

(including the sources already mentioned, as well as polls, statistics, and trends) to depict a more holistic view of the state of the Republican Party in 2012 within U.S. politics, and speculate regarding its future.

4.4 Conclusion In this chapter I have demonstrated not only how my study aligns with current trends in rhetorical criticism, but have also made clear the five steps that were undertaken to ensure that my research was responsive to its dataset, thorough in its assessment of contextualizing factors, and academically responsible.

Chapter Five: Analysis

5.1 Introduction This chapter has been broken into the following five sections: 5.2) “Rhetorical Situation,” 5.3)

“Appeals Made to People of Lower Socio-Economic Status,” 5.4) “Appeals Made to Women,”

5.5) “Appeals Made to Christian Voters,” and 5.6) “Speech Impacts and Responses.”

Section 5.2, “Rhetorical Situation,” is organized thematically to address the situations surrounding the economy, female voters, and religion during the 2012 campaign. This section contextualizes the RNC and DNC of 2012, and prefaces the analysis of the primary data set of this study (the speeches) which takes place in sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5.

Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 each deal, in turn, with how appeals are made to their particular study group5 in the speeches given by Mitt Romney, Anne Romney, Barack Obama and Michelle

Obama. These sections then conclude with a series of discussions and comparisons of the various appeals.

Section 5.6 contains a secondary and subordinate analysis which uses statistics, news, media, and blog posts to discuss how each speech was received by the American public and party voter-bases.

5.2 Rhetorical Situation 5.2.1 Context: The American Economy in 2012 The 2012 election campaign occurred at a tumultuous time in American history. During Barack

Obama’s first term in office, the American housing crisis and the global recession had negatively impacted the United States’ economy and the morale of its people. At that time many voters were unemployed and feared for their financial futures. Accordingly in 2012, Gallup reported the

5Voters of lower socioeconomic status, female voters and Christian voters

economy was ranked as the most important issue for voters in their consideration of whom to elect as president (Jones, 2012, para. 1). The report also stated that historically presidents “have been easily re-elected in times of relative prosperity […] and presidents have been defeated for a second term in down economies” (para. 8). Thus, according to Gallup (2012), “a key for

President Obama [would have been] how well or poorly Americans rate[d] the national economy, and his job of handling it,” and they projected that “if Americans remain[ed] concerned about the economy, in order to win the election, Obama's eventual Republican opponent [would] have to convince voters that he [was] better able to handle it than the president

[was]” (para. 9-10). Therefore, the economy and making strong appeals to people of middle or lower socioeconomic status were of critical importance for both the Romney and Obama campaigns.

In the same article, Gallup (2012) also reported that “The greatest difference between

Democrats and Republicans [came] with respect to [their perspectives of] the gap between rich and poor—81 % of Democrats rate[d] it extremely or very important to their vote, compared with 35% of Republicans” (para. 7). This interest in wealth disparity (particularly for Democrats) was likely heightened by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement which was a protest movement started in 2011. OWS aimed to “[fight] back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that ha[d] caused the greatest recession in generations” (Occupy

Wall Street, n.d., para. 1). In addition to criticizing large banks, and corporations, OWS attributed much of the economic hardship of that time to the wealthiest 1% of people who, in their view had created and perpetuated “an unfair global economy” (Occupy Wall Street Official

Website, n.d. para. 1). This context presented particular challenges for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign because his economic prosperity placed him in the wealthiest 1% of

Americans (Kennon, 2011), who were being vilified in the public discourse at that time.

In addition to disparaging Mitt Romney’s wealth, critics also took aim at his persona.

Some said that Mitt Romney was simply “too perfect” for the presidency (The Week Staff, 2012, headline; sentiment echoed in Parker, 2012). His “squeaky-clean” image (Goldenberg, 2007), 43 year-long marriage (Mitt Romney, 2014), successful track record, and lack of personal scandals resulted in the left-leaning media calling him a robot (Draper, 2011) and his family “fake”

(Sheppard, 2012, para. 2).

This perceived ethos of elitism, wealth, and perfection caused Mitt Romney to struggle to relate to middle-income Americans during his campaign. Leading up to the RNC, social media sites buzzed with different versions of “Relatable Romney” memes (humorously captioned graphics) that targeted his wealth and privileged position. Captions for these memes included, “I know what it’s like to be unemployed, I haven’t had to work in years,” “I know it’s hard to manage your finances, I can’t keep track of all my money either,” and “Sometimes it’s hard to ask for help, because they’ve all gone home for the day” (Mezrahi, Buzzfeed, 2012, images 3, 8, and 13). The meme captions also critiqued Ann Romney, stating for example “My wife worked hard, the maids and nannies didn’t order themselves around, you know” (Mezrahi, Buzzfeed,

2012, image 11). The Romneys’ wealth, histories, and character traits were critiqued by many political commentators as being unfavourable characteristics in a potential president and first lady (Sepulvado, 2012; Welsh 2012). These contextual factors placed the Romneys in a position that would have been difficult for many Americans to relate to. Consequently, Mitt and Ann

Romney’s speeches at the RNC would present for them an opportunity to identify with average

American voters and to overcome stereotypes that had been placed upon them during the months leading up to the national convention.

Conversely, at the DNC Barack Obama would need to convince voters that he was able to manage the economy after many had perceived that he had failed in this regard during his first term as president. Regaining the trust of the American people would be important in Barack

Obama’s speech. Michelle Obama also needed to aid in her husband’s efforts to regain the trust of Americans of lower socioeconomic status and would likely seek to demonstrate that she and her husband could understand the plight of middle-income Americans more easily than the

Romneys could have.

5.2.2 Context: Women in America in 2012 With regard to female voters and the role of issues related to women during the 2012 campaign, the Republican Party was facing particular hardship. In 2010, prominent Democrats and the media began accusing the Republican Party of waging a “war against women.” This phrase “war against women” was used by critics of the Republican Party to describe Republican stances, statements, and policies regarding abortion, access to healthcare, equal pay, and domestic violence (New York Times, 2012a). In their critics’ eyes, Republicans were seeking to deny women access to abortion, contraceptives, paid parental leave, and protection from sexual assault. Republican politicians and other well-known conservatives often argued that the alleged

“war against women” was a fallacy created by the Democratic Party to vilify Republicans and earn the allegiance of female voters.

Just over a week prior to Mitt Romney’s RNC acceptance speech, Todd Akin, a

Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives was being interviewed in a televised broadcast. Because the House of Representatives was debating the issue of abortion, he was asked whether he felt that there should be exceptions made in his anti-abortion stance in cases of rape. Akin replied by stating

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancies resulting from rape are] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child. (as quoted in Eligon & Schwirtz, 2012, para. 3)

Akin’s use of the phrase “legitimate rape” and the notion that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” fell under scrutiny because critics felt as though his statements were ill-informed and minimized the suffering of rape victims (Moore, 2012, para 3). Both Mitt

Romney (who was not yet the nominee for the Republican Party) and President Obama responded to Akin the same day his remarks were made. Mitt Romney issued the following statement:

Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong […] Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive. (Moore, para. 10)

Obama’s response was

Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me. (Moore, para. 13)

While both men condemned Akin’s statements, Mitt Romney’s speech would be more affected than President Obama’s by the overtones of the alleged Republican “war on women.” Akin’s remarks made just days before Mitt Romney’s nomination acceptance stoked the fire of

Republican critics and placed the onus on Romney to prove that such statements were not reflective of the Republican Party as a whole.

5.2.3 Context: Religion in America in 2012 Religion and appeals to Christian voters would also play an important role in the 2012 campaign, more so during the Republican primaries than in the general election. Pew Research Center

(2012a) reported that in 2011, 70% of Evangelical Christian voters identified as Republican, compared with 24% who identified with the Democratic Party (Pew Research Center, 2012a, p.

1). Evangelicals and Mormons have doctrinal differences that have caused some Evangelicals to question Mormonism as a truly “Christian” faith. Additionally, during the primaries, when

Romney was still vying against other Republican hopefuls for the nomination, Robert Jeffress (a pastor in Texas who had endorsed Rick Perry) called Mormonism a “cult” at a political event

(Stanley, 2011). Notions of distrust of Mormons were widespread in America during Mitt

Romney’s campaign.

Even in more recent times, Mormonism has continued to face pushback among many

Americans. A 2014 Pew Poll rated Americans’ feelings toward different religions. Participants were asked to rate their sentiments toward various religious groups on a scale from 0 to 100 (100 representing the most positive feeling). Mormonism achieved a low rating of 48 on the scale

(above only Muslims with 40 and Atheists with 41). Comparatively, Judaism and Catholicism received the highest ratings of 63 and 62 (Pew Research., 2014b). It is likely that Mormonism was even more stigmatized in America prior to Mitt Romney’s campaign because it was less familiar to people prior to that time.

Mormonism, which many journalists had described as “misunderstood” and mysterious

(quote from National Public Radio, 2011, headline; sentiment repeated in Brooks, 2011), was under the microscope during Mitt Romney’s campaign (Kantor 2012; Knoll, 2013).

Consequently, the media paid a great deal of attention to Mitt Romney’s religion, and he “was the subject of about twice as much religion-related coverage as Obama” (Pew Research Center

2012c, para. 6). The mystery surrounding the Romneys’ Mormon faith presented a challenge for how the couple would portray their ethoi at the RNC to a Republican voter-base that had historically favoured Protestant Christian candidates.

Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith seemingly presented itself as an easy target for his opponents. However, Barack Obama would need to avoid such attacks at the DNC because his faith has also come under scrutiny by American Evangelicals. President Obama had often been accused of being a “secret Muslim.” While this conspiracy theory had no evidential support, a

2010 poll (conducted by Pew Research Center) reported that 24% of Americans believed that the president was a Muslim (Holan, 2010). As mentioned above, Muslims received a 40 on a 100 point scale when Americans rated their feelings toward them, which was the lowest of any religion (and also lower than Atheists) (Pew Research Center, 2014b). Because many Americans had questioned Obama’s faith it was likely to be in his best interest to avoid raising the subject of religion by attacking Romney for his beliefs.

5.3 Appeals to People of Lower Socioeconomic Status Taking these situational elements into consideration, I now analyze each of the four speeches and discuss how each speaker appealed to people of lower socioeconomic status, female voters, and

Christian voters at the RNC and DNC of 2012.

5.3.1 Mitt Romney In his speech, Mitt Romney sought to present himself as an authority on success and economics.

He attempted to paint a dichotomy between his life experiences and those of President Obama.

Mitt Romney chose to highlight his success in the business world while also making numerous references to the fact that Barack Obama had largely spent his career in politics and had little experience as a business person. In doing this, Mitt Romney attempted to identify with entrepreneurs and middle-income Americans, while also discrediting the president and his career experiences.

Mitt Romney’s wealth, estimated at $250 million dollars (Cohan, 2012), uniquely positioned him to address the American people about the economy because he had achieved a great deal of personal economic success. This wealth also presented challenges that were unique to the social discourse of 2012 because the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests had recently pitted 99% of the country’s population against the 1% of the country’s most wealthy individuals

(which included Mitt Romney). On the one hand Mitt Romney could discuss economic prosperity from a place of expertise (as he had succeeded in reaching a great deal of economic

success). On the other hand, he would likely struggle to deliver a populist message because many people would find it hard to identify with his level of economic prosperity.

Mitt Romney attempted to identify with entrepreneurs and hard-working Americans by sharing his experience of creating a start-up company (Bain Capital) and highlighting the struggle (and potential success) that comes with taking large risks. In relating the story, he stated

That business we started with 10 people has now grown into a great American success story. […] Now, we weren't always successful at Bain. But no one ever is in the real world of business. That's what this President doesn't seem to understand. Business and growing jobs is about taking risk, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, but always striving. It is about dreams. (Listitude, 2012, 24:01, 25:45)

By discussing his business experience, Mitt Romney tried to gain the trust of his audience and create an ethos of knowledge and authority. This type of appeal came at a fragile economic time when many Americans were feeling helpless and looked to Mitt Romney as a potential leader who could restore their faith in the possibility of financial success in America.

As mentioned earlier, Mitt Romney faced a unique challenge of appearing authoritative while remaining relatable to middle-income Americans. Building upon Burke’s concept of identification, Longaker and Walker (2011) argue that differences in social statuses matter in persuasion. They state that “social privilege is often admired but rarely felt” (Longaker &

Walker, 2011, p. 237). To achieve identification with his audience, Mitt Romney needed audience members to feel consubstantial with him. Because social privilege is rarely felt,

Romney sought through his speech to abandon his privileged position and take on the persona of a middle-income entrepreneur. By saying “we weren’t always successful at Bain” (Listitude,

2012, 25:45), Mitt Romney tried to break the stereotype that he had lived a charmed life. He also attempted to combat accusations that he and his family were fake, by using the phrase “in the real world” when discussing the business world, as opposed to the political world (25:50).

Moreover, Mitt Romney continued this statement which equated the business world with the 81

“real world” (25:50) by saying “That's what this President doesn't seem to understand” (25:51).

Through this, Mitt Romney attempted to establish himself as a member of “the real world” while simultaneously insinuating that Obama was an outsider more familiar with the realm of politics than “real” issues.

In this statement, Mitt Romney used two forms of identification: “similarity” and “terms that hide division.” He portrayed himself as being similar to his audience by referring to his struggles. He also attempted to hide divisions between his business (which was incredibly large and successful) and the entrepreneurial pursuits of his audience members by stating that the company started with just 10 people. Additionally, by insinuating that he and his audience shared knowledge about the “real world” that Barack Obama lacked, Mitt Romney included himself in an insider circle of trust from which the president was excluded.

Also in his speech, Mitt Romney sought to prove that his success came from his own merit rather than his privileged upbringing. Mitt Romney’s father was a well-known politician and businessman who served as president of the American Motor Corporation. As such, Mitt

Romney attempted to distance himself from his father and claim his success as having been built through hard work rather than inherited wealth. He did so by stating

By the time I was out of school, I realized that I had to go out on my own, that if I stayed around Michigan in the same business, I'd never really know if I was getting a break because of my dad. I wanted to go someplace new and prove myself. (Listitude, 2012, 17:30)

The phrases “on my own” and “prove myself” in the narrative attempted to create a sense of Mitt

Romney’s independence. Additionally, Mitt’s narrative sought to identify with audiences through the form of “commonality” or shared experiences. Mitt Romney’s narrative reflected an experience that many Americans would have encountered as they had attempted to work hard and succeed on their own merit.

Some of Mitt Romney’s audience, however, may not have been convinced by his attempts to distance himself from his family’s privileged position. Rhetorical critic Kirk (2013) judiciously pointed out that some of Mitt Romney’s rhetorical strategies “ignore[d] the clear benefits already accrued through his father’s influence and wealth” (p. 55), and thus, may have failed to appeal to some members of his audience. Mitt Romney’s privileged upbringing presented him with major challenges that for many audience members were likely not sufficiently addressed.

As Mitt Romney continued to discuss the early years of his career, he also relied upon the concept of the American dream. He did so by admitting that the days he spent building his company, Bain Capital, “weren’t the easiest of days” (17:50). This admission of vulnerability again sought to combat accusations that Mitt Romney’s life had always been easy. It also set up the potential for Mitt Romney to characterize his life as the realization of the American dream by demonstrating that he had overcome obstacles and hardship to achieve the level of success that he had attained. He continued his narrative by stating that he had spent

many long hours and weekends working. [With][f]ive young sons who seemed to have this need to re-enact a different world war every night. But if you ask Ann and I what we'd give, to break up just one more fight between the boys, or wake up in the morning and discover a pile of kids asleep in our room. Well, every mom and dad knows the answer to that. (Listitude, 2012, 17:53)

Mitt Romney’s account created identification with his audience by demonstrating his participation in a habitus (shared set of behaviours or practices) associated with being a self- made family-man. More specifically, Mitt Romney’s account of working long hours and breaking up fights between his sons established him as an individual who had participated in behaviours that would be recognized by audience members to characterize hard-working entrepreneurs and fathers.

In addition to trying to demonstrate that he had earned his own success, Mitt Romney attempted to differentiate himself from Barack Obama by illustrating that he had more relevant experience when dealing with job creation, business, and the economy than did the president.

Mitt Romney did so through his statement

The President hasn't disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn't led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government. (Listitude, 2012, 22:10)

Through this statement, Mitt Romney critiqued the president’s ability to lead through an ad hominem (or personal character) attack. The phrasing of this attack on Obama’s capability, however, seemed softer and more gracious than making a more overtly malicious critique of the president might have. Such a tactic would likely have reflected poorly on Mitt Romney. Mitt

Romney’s strike against Barack Obama’s competency also positioned Mitt Romney to assume an ethos of expertise by comparison. Mitt Romney himself set the “qualification […] essential to the task” of being president as having worked in a business, and then implied that he filled that qualification much better than the president did. When setting forth this standard of qualification,

Mitt Romney was careful to say that it was important to “work in” a business rather than to

“own” a business. This phrasing created identification with Mitt Romney’s audience through

“terms that hide divisions” (as mentioned in the theory chapter). Mitt Romney’s audience would be more likely to identify with this phraseology which included all people who had worked for or with a business in any capacity than they would have if he had placed himself among the elite business owners of America.

Ethical appeals are complex and at times can work to both cause audiences to relate to rhetors as well as admire them. As mentioned, Mitt Romney related to his audience by using terms that were inclusive to them. Conversely, he also differentiated himself from his audience

by assuming a role of leadership in economic issues. Despite the fact that Mitt Romney’s self- invented qualification for the job of president was not overtly justified in his speech or supported by other sources, many audience members would likely have trusted Mitt with regard to wealth and prosperity because of his own financial affluence and prestige. By relying on the rhetorical situation that preceded the RNC, and his well-known monetary success, Mitt Romney differentiated himself from his audience in a way “that grant[ed] [him] knowledge or expertise in judgement” of economic issues (Martin, 2014, p. 64). This perceived expertise likely garnered trust and support from Mitt Romney’s audience who was working to overcome a global economic crisis.

When considering the uncertainty of the economy, Mitt Romney’s strongest appeal came as he urged his audience to consider their economic situation in 2012 compared to their circumstances prior to Barack Obama’s first presidential term. Noticeably exasperated, Mitt

Romney declared

This president can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else's fault. This president can tell us that the next four years he'll get it right. But this president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office. (Listitude, 2012, 27:30)

Stylistically, this statement was strengthened through its use of repetition. Mitt Romney began each new thought with the phrase “this president.” This use of repetition built up the argument in a way that would be typical of a logical progression. As such, it created the feeling that Mitt

Romney’s statement must have been valid.

Additionally, this exclamation relied heavily on the situational assumption that

Americans’ quality of life had generally declined between 2007 and 2012. The global recession, in addition to the U.S. housing crisis of 2008, had had intense detrimental impacts on the U.S. economy. Very few Americans would have benefitted financially during that time. These

conditions likely granted Mitt Romney’s statement a strong air of truth for the vast majority of his audience. Thus, Mitt Romney’s statement appealed to the emotions of his audience at an economically vulnerable time.

A few moments later in his speech, Mitt Romney took advantage of his audience’s vulnerability by pushing them to fear that this their economic struggles would continue if

President Obama were re-elected. Mitt Romney appealed to the audience’s fears by stating “To the majority of Americans who now believe that the future will not be better than the past, I can guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected, you will be right” (Listitude, 2012, 30:00).

Some might argue that Mitt Romney’s blaming of President Obama for the poor economy is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The term post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this, so because of this” in Latin. This type of fallacy involves “incorrectly assuming that, in a sequence of two events the first caused the second” (Longaker & Walker, 2011, p. 65). There may have been many factors outside of President Obama’s control that contributed to the troubled economic times. It is likely, however, that a Republican audience that already had strong biases against Barack Obama would have agreed with Mitt Romney’s reasoning.

Consequently, this statement likely resonated with many people who heard the speech because it pushed them to reflect on their personal circumstances, invoked their vulnerabilities and fears, and also insinuated that there would be negative consequences if President Obama were re- elected.

Wilson’s (2015) article, “The Rhetoric of Fear and Partisan Entrenchment”, states that

“fear is a popular tool for political actors, who maintain power by convincing the voting public that they are best suited to protect citizens from dangers” (p. 117). The article also argues that the intense negative emotions that people feel during economic crises heighten their sense of

vulnerability (p. 120). Mitt Romney’s audiences would have been more receptive to his remarks because of the economic downturn that preceded his presidential campaign.

Additionally, Wilson suggested that fear-inducing statements are particularly powerful when they are made by “those who are perceived to be in control of future financial decisions”

(2015, p. 120). Mitt Romney’s positioning as the potential future president assigned weight to his statement and elicited a heightened response from his audience.

According to Martin (2014), human emotion precedes conscious awareness in the act of deliberation ( p. 114). This fact made Mitt Romney’s appeal to pathos strong because it brought his audience’s emotions to the forefront of their minds and made them more likely rely on those emotions when considering whom to select as their future president.

While Mitt Romney’s speech was strong in highlighting his business expertise and his experience in the private sector, he ultimately struggled to overcome barriers of relatability that existed for him prior to the speech and which continued after its delivery. More specifically, Mitt

Romney’s privileged position was heavily reported on by the media, and likely made many of his attempts to be a self-made man somewhat unconvincing, especially to Democrats and potential swing-voters.

5.3.2 Ann Romney Ann Romney had two basic objectives in appealing to voters of lower socioeconomic status through her speech. First Ann Romney aimed to alter the perceived ethos of her husband by highlighting his accomplishments and also making more specific reference to the challenges they had faced to reach their economic standing. Second, she sought to reach identification with her audience by counteracting the constant attacks that the couple had suffered due to their affluence.

She did so by creating an “us” vs. “them” dichotomy against Barack Obama.

To deflect accusations that Mitt Romney was raised with a “silver spoon” (Montopoli,

2012) in his mouth, Ann Romney made use of the “similarity” form of identification. Burke stated that in politics this type of identification takes form when a politician, “though rich, tells humble constituents of his humble origins” thereby allowing audiences to relate to the orator

(Burke, as cited in Woodward, 2003, p. 26). Ann Romney performed this type of identification by stating

We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping responsibilities, ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses, our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. But those were the best days. (Republican National Convention, 2012, 10:36-10:57)

Ann Romney’s narrative pointed out similarities between the Romneys and their audience. This story would have resonated particularly with members of her audience who had experienced economic struggle. After hearing this story, it is likely that the audience could more easily identify with both Mitt and Ann Romney and feel consubstantial (or linked) with them.

Ann Romney further identified with a middle-income and low-income American audience by focussing on the humble beginnings of her and Mitt Romney’s families. She stated that her father came to America at age 15 with hope for “an opportunity to escape from poverty”

(9:07-9:10). She then described Mitt Romney’s father by saying that “[He] never graduated from college. Instead, he became a carpenter. He worked hard and then he became the head of a car company, and then the governor of Michigan” (10:10-10:16). Ann Romney’s humble description of two men who worked hard to get ahead in America was likely compelling to a Republican audience.

Ann Romney’s recount of her and Mitt Romney’s fathers’ personal histories acted as

“American Dream” narratives within her speech. According to Ann Romney, both of their

fathers came from humble beginnings to achieve great things in the business world, in monetary gain, and the American political sphere.

Ann Romney attempted to push back against her and Mitt Romney’s perceived ethos of privilege through the use of American dream narratives. These narratives likely gave hope to struggling audience members and made them want to believe in successful opportunities for their own futures.

Republican voters believe more strongly in the concept of the American dream than do

Democratic voters (Harvard Institute of Politics, 2014, para. 2). More specifically, in 2012 56% of Republican voters reported to believe that “if you work hard, you’ll be rewarded,” as compared with only 36% of Democratic voters (Thomson-DeVeaux, 2012, para. 5). Thus, it is likely that Ann Romney’s appeals would have been better received by a Republican voter-base than by Democratic voters or potential swing-voters.

In her speech Ann Romney also argued that success should not be vilified. She did so by saying

It's true that Mitt's been successful at each new challenge he has taken on. You know what? It actually amazes me to see his history of success being attacked. Are those really the values that made our country great? […] Let's be honest. If the last four years had been more successful, do we really think there would be this attack on Mitt Romney's success? (Republican National Convention, 2012, 14:19)

Ann Romney’s specific mention of “the last four years” was a blatant attack on President Obama because the president was just finishing a four year term at that time. Many Republican voters had attributed the weak economy to President Obama (Alberts, 2012), and Ann Romney’s statement “Are those really the values that made our country great?” (Republican National

Convention, 2012, 14:29) insinuated that it was not only tasteless to attack success, but that it was also un-American.

This criticism of those who disparage success created a strong “us” versus “them” dichotomy and aligned Mitt Romney with the American ideals of hard work and success and

Barack Obama with un-American ideals of jealousy and insecurity. This type of appeal is often effective because it works to establish commonality between rhetors and audiences. Bernard

Brock (as quoted by Woodward, 2003) said that this type of identification often “involves the workings of antithesis, as when allies who would otherwise dispute among themselves join forces against a common enemy” (Woodward, 2003, p. 26). Ann Romney’s appeal characterized

Barack Obama’s criticism of Mitt Romney’s success as being unpatriotic. As such, audience members (regardless of their socioeconomic status) would likely have aligned themselves with alleged American ideals (and consequently, with the Romneys).

Ann Romney’s assertion that success should be prized rather than demonized allowed her to not only justify the Romneys’ success, but take pride in it.

In the conclusion of her remarks, Ann Romney related herself to America and argued that

Mitt Romney would take care of the country just as he had taken care of her. She did so by referring to her first date with Mitt Romney. She said

It has been 47 years since that tall, kind of charming young man brought me home from our first dance. Not every day since has been easy. But he still makes me laugh. And never once did I have a single reason to doubt that I was the luckiest woman in the world. […] I said tonight I wanted to talk to you about love. Look into your hearts. This is our country. This is our future. These are our children and grandchildren. You can trust Mitt. He loves America. He will take us to a better place, just as he took me home safely from that dance. Give him that chance. Give America that chance (Republican National Convention, 2012, 20:00)

In these concluding statements, Ann Romney acted as a character witness for Mitt Romney from a privileged position. She used a simple metaphor linking herself to America, and ensured her audience that Mitt Romney would take care of them as he has taken care of her. Her assurance that “you can trust Mitt” (20:34) came from her years of experience trusting Mitt Romney.

Because the main function of ethical appeals is to establish a sense of trust between audiences and rhetors, Ann Romney’s exhortation to her audience to “trust Mitt” was a very overt attempt to create an ethical appeal for him. By referring to the 47 years that Ann Romney had trusted

Mitt Romney, she could offer a qualified testimony on his behalf that he would not let them down.

5.3.3 Barack Obama In relating to the American public, Barack and Michelle Obama did not face the same situational challenge of immense wealth as the Romneys did in their 2012 speeches; however, they did have their own challenges to face when crafting appeals to Americans of lower socioeconomic status.

In his speech Barack Obama needed to convince the American public to re-elect him, in spite of the poor economy. President Obama used three main strategies to appeal to Americans of lower socioeconomic status. First, he avoided assuming blame for the country’s economic woes, and instead highlighted positive changes that had taken place in America during his first term in office. Second, he tried to glorify the economic struggle that America was faced with, and unite himself with the American people in overcoming it. Third, he told American dream narratives to inspire his audience.

Rather than taking responsibility for the poor economy, Barack Obama separated middle- class families from millionaires and created an “us” against “them” dichotomy between them.

This dichotomy rested on the rhetorical situation that had preceded the DNC when many people had blamed the American elite for creating an unfair global economy.

When discussing tax reform, Barack stated

I've cut taxes for those who need it — middle-class families and small businesses. But I don't believe that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring good jobs to our shores, or pay down our deficit. (ABC News, 2012b, 9:20)

The president attempted to appeal to those who struggled economically by implying that they were deserving of special privileges (specifically tax breaks), and arguing that millionaires did not deserve these types of benefits. This type of rhetoric, which separated and othered the

American elite from the middle-class, was used nineteen different times throughout Barack

Obama’s speech.

President Obama also used the context of the rhetorical situation and the discourse created by Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, to appeal to the American masses by asserting that Obama’s America would be one where “everyone plays by the same rules — from Main

Street to Wall Street to Washington, DC” (ABC News, 2012b, 7:00). This statement acted as a pathos appeal and utilized what is referred to as an associative pathemata. Pathemata refers to

“symbols with strong emotional resonance” that invoke pathos from audiences (Longaker &

Walker, 2011, p. 214). “Main Street,” “Wall Street,” and “Washington, DC” in this phrase each acted as emotionally resonant symbols that would be known to an American audience. “Main

Street” symbolized working America, and the average American lifestyle. “Wall Street” symbolized corporate America, and the richest 1% of the country that had been accused of manipulating the economy. “Washington, DC” represented the political establishment who many had linked to corporate America and corruption at that time. By stating that these three groups would be forced to “play by the same rules,” Barack Obama was positioning himself (through resonant symbols) to fight on behalf of average Americans against the elite and corrupt politicians who many had accused of creating an unfair global economy.

Rather than attempting to explain, rationalize, or take responsibility for the poor economy in his speech, Barack Obama chose to position himself among his constituents as just another

American in the collective fight to overcome the country’s challenges. He did so by referring to the audience as his “fellow citizens” (32:00). Barack urged his audience to stand with him and pass through the hardships the country was facing together (39:10). He deflected attention from

himself and his record in handling the economy by flattering his constituents. For example, when discussing his first term as president, Obama stated

So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens —you were the change.

You're the reason there's a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who'll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can't limit her coverage. You did that.

You're the reason a young man in Colorado who never thought he'd be able to afford his dream of earning a medical degree is about to get that chance. You made that possible.

You're the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag will no longer be deported from the only country she's ever called home; why selfless soldiers won't be kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love; why thousands of families have finally been able to say to the loved ones who served us so bravely: Welcome home. Welcome home. You did that. You did that. You did that. (ABC News, 2012b, 32:00)

This appeal included emotionally charged issues that were considered important to Democratic voters in 2012. Moreover, several of these issues were of fundamental interest to Democratic voters of lower socioeconomic status. For example, healthcare was an intense concern for

Americans without health insurance or a means of paying for their treatment. Due to the cost of post-secondary education, student loans had become an important topic for the middle and lower classes. Immigrants in the United States often struggle to take full advantage of the opportunities that the country has to offer. By highlighting issues that the audience felt a vested interest in,

Barack Obama evoked a passionate response from his audience.

As mentioned, President Obama’s intense praise of his audience could be characterized as flattery. Woodward (2003) describes flattery as being “a form of pandering that gives pleasure to an audience and power to the persuader” (p. 10). Some scholars including Plato have

criticised this type of appeal for ethical reasons. Regardless of the moral and ethical views regarding such appeals, praise was a well-utilized element of Obama’s speech that evoked a very strong emotional response from his audience. Their cheering was so loud at times that Obama would have to pause simply to allow the roar to quiet enough for him to proceed.

Stylistically the appeal in the above quote was powerful because of its use of repetitive forms. President Obama repeated “you did that” after each of his various examples of American success. At the close of his statement he again repeated “you did that” three consecutive times.

Longaker and Walker argue that that “the repetitive, accumulative restatement of the same argument or idea […] can be very powerful” because repetition reinforces an idea and encourages audiences to ponder it for more time (2011, p. 111). President Obama’s repetition of

“you did that” granted agency to the voters who had felt helpless during troubled economic times.

The president continued his appeal by arguing that his audience not only had the power to change America, but the moral responsibility to do so. He did so with his statement

If you turn away now—if you turn away now, if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible, well, change will not happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void, the lobbyists and special interests, the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are trying to make it harder for you to vote, Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves. Only you can make sure that doesn't happen. Only you have the power to move us forward. (ABC News, 2012b, 33:25)

Not unlike Mitt Romney, Barack Obama also played to the fears of his audience. He did so by stating “If you turn away now —if you turn away now, if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible, well, change will not happen” (ABC News, 2012b, 33:25).

President Obama’s statement pushed his audience to fear that if they did not vote for him, that their views would be overridden by those of America’s elite. In their book, Longaker and Walker relate this type of pathos appeal to the fear that is associated with a looming predator (2011, p.

210). They argue that neurologically, the fear of a looming predator may cause our brains to bypass “conscious deliberation” and act more directly in response to the fear we are experiencing

(p. 210). Barack Obama insinuated that if his audiences did not vote for him then they would become further oppressed by the elite. This would have likely made listeners feel threatened and pressured into supporting him over Mitt Romney.

While Mitt Romney suggested that the economic downturn might have been avoided under more stable leadership, Barack Obama ignored this possibility in his speech and instead posited that the economic suffering of America was inevitable. He begged his audience to endure: “America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won't promise that now. Yes, our path is harder, but it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together”

(ABC News, 2012b, 40:00). Barack Obama identified with his audience by including himself in their plight. For example, he used words like “our” and “we” when discussing the challenges that

America was confronted with. Alternatively, Mitt Romney more often used “you” to describe his audience, and tried to identify with them through shared experience rather than through grammatical forms. While shared experiences are important, subtle cues like “we” our “us” are very strong in appealing to audiences and were likely effective in creating identification between

Americans of lower socioeconomic status and President Obama’s in his 2012 DNC speech.

In addition to Barack Obama’s use of inclusive language, identity politics also played a fundamental role in his speech and his ability to identify with his audience. Woodward’s book describes identity politics as having “empathy [or identification] with subnational groups in which we see ourselves as stakeholders” (2003, pp. 125-126). Sub-groups within a larger culture have the propensity to experience greater unity and identification with other members of their

group when they perceive themselves to be disenfranchised (Woodward, 2003, p. 126), as

Americans of lower socioeconomic status likely did in 2012. Mitt Romney’s racial background, his family of origin, his father’s political and business achievements, his wealth, his Harvard education, his Mormon faith, his squeaky-clean image, and his seemingly perfect marriage all made his life seem less relatable to many Americans. While still privileged in some ways

(including having received a Harvard education), Barack Obama was likely more relatable to average Americans because of his biracial heritage, the fact that he came from a broken home and was raised by his grandparents from a young age, his level of wealth (which was less than

10% of Romney’s wealth), and his charismatic attitude.

Lastly, to identify with his audience, Barack Obama utilized American dream narratives.

He only briefly mentioned his own heritage by stating that his grandparents worked hard, went to college, and bought their own home. He then chose (unlike Mitt Romney who dwelled longer on his personal history) to leave his own story behind and again turned to focus on his audience and their stories. He related the narratives of a young woman who won a science fair, an auto worker who, despite winning the lottery, continued to work hard at his job and contribute in his community, owners of a family business who fought hard to not lay off a single employee during the recession, and a young sailor who lost his leg after being struck by a grenade fighting overseas and then worked to be able to walk and cycle using a prosthetic limb. When discussing these people, the president stated that each of them gave him hope, and then said to the audience

“as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America. Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I'm naive about the magnitude of our challenges. I'm hopeful because of you” (ABC News, 2012b, 36:10). Overall, the strength in Barack Obama’s remarks came from the way that he empowered his audience. President Obama’s decision to appeal to voters by flattering them and resting the fate of America’s future with them helped him to deflect responsibility of American economic hardship away from himself.

Both Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s speeches worked to appeal to their respective voter-bases, and each speech was demonstrative of some of the values of each these bases. A portion of each of their appeals may also have appealed to swing voters or at times even voters from the opposing party.

5.3.4 Michelle Obama Not unlike Ann Romney’s, Michelle Obama’s speech served to build up her husband’s ethos.

She appealed to people of lower socioeconomic status by giving them hope through sharing various American dream narratives. She began by narrating Barack Obama’s and her histories, and then shared the experiences of different Americans that she had met around the country. She

(to a smaller degree than President Obama) also sought to differentiate the American middle- class from the elite and glorify economic struggle.

When discussing Barack Obama’s and her upbringings and young life together, Michelle

Obama stated

You see, even though back then Barack was a Senator and a presidential candidate. To me, he was still the guy who'd picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door. He was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he'd found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small. (ABC News, 2012 A, 7:30)

This narration of the pair’s history employed a very similar strategy as Ann Romney’s claim that she and Mitt Romney had lived in a basement-suite apartment and used a door propped on sawhorses as a desk and an ironing-board as a dining-room table. Each of these women strove to show that their husbands and they had risen from humble beginnings and worked their way to success, thus creating a sense of identification through similarity. While these narratives may have been true, both Ann Romney’s and Michelle Obama’s statements may have seemed hyperbolic to some audience members because of the extreme nature of their examples. Rather

than eliciting the genuine emotion of these audience members, these stories might simply have evoked skepticism.

Later in her speech, Michelle Obama related the president’s and her families’ histories to the trying circumstances of her audience during that difficult economic time. She did so by discussing the sacrifices made by their parents and grandparents to help them achieve success.

Referring back to their dating life, Michelle Obama said

When Barack started telling me about his family—that's when I knew I had found a kindred spirit, someone whose values and upbringing were so much like mine. You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable—their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves. My father was a pump operator at the city water plant, and he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis when my brother and I were young. And even as a kid, I knew there were plenty of days when he was in pain. I knew there were plenty of mornings when it was a struggle for him to simply get out of bed. But every morning, I watched my father wake up with a smile, grab his walker, prop himself up against the bathroom sink, and slowly shave and button his uniform. And when he returned home after a long day's work, my brother and I would stand at the top of the stairs to our little apartment, patiently waiting to greet him, watching as he reached down to lift one leg, and then the other, to slowly climb his way into our arms. But despite these challenges, my dad hardly ever missed a day of work. He and my mom were determined to give me and my brother the kind of education they could only dream of. And when my brother and I finally made it to college, nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants. But my dad still had to pay a tiny portion of that tuition himself. And every semester, he was determined to pay that bill right on time, even taking out loans when he fell short. He was so proud to be sending his kids to college, and he made sure we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late. You see, for my dad, that's what it meant to be a man. Like so many of us, that was the measure of his success in life—being able to earn a decent living that allowed him to support his family. (ABC News, 2012a, 8:00)

Several important elements would have made this appeal compelling to an audience of

Democratic voters of lower socioeconomic status. Michelle Obama’s use of identification through similarity was strong because not only did she tell a narrative that was highly emotional, she also touched on circumstances that would resonate with her audience.

By relating the story of her father’s battle with multiple sclerosis (MS), and his determination to achieve a better life for his children, Michelle Obama appealed to the American middle-class who had made sacrifices for the benefit of their children, or who had witnessed others doing so. Sharing this experience with the audience created an opportunity for audience members to perceive that Michelle Obama had too suffered in many of the ways that they or their family might have.

Had Michelle Obama chosen only to highlight her father’s illness, she might have invoked pity from her audience. Instead, by positioning her father as an underdog by emphasizing his fight to overcome obstacles and sacrifice for those he loved, the story became one that Americans could relate to.

Additionally, she mentioned student loan debt four times throughout her speech. When discussing the early part of her and Barack Obama’s marriage Michelle Obama even stated “We were so young, so in love, and so in debt” (ABC News, 2012a, 17:00). Given the high cost of post-secondary education in the U.S. and the fact that education and student-loan debt was an important priority of Democratic voters in 2012, Michelle Obama’s references to this topic would likely have appealed to her voter-base.

Michelle Obama’s comments about student loan debt made use of the rhetorical situation which preceded the DNC. A few months before the conventions of 2012 Mitt Romney had urged young people to pursue higher education and told them to “borrow money if you have to from

your parents” (Strasser, 2012). Mitt Romney’s critics stated that such a statement was evidence of just how out of touch he was with average Americans.

Kenneth Burke has argued that identification makes people to want to collaborate with those they feel similar to, and compete against those who they perceive to be unlike them (as cited in Heath, 2001, p, 375). This principle was apparent in Michelle Obama’s speech because her narrative created a dichotomy between the Obamas’ life of financial and health challenges, and the perceived life of luxury led by the Romneys. Voters of lower socioeconomic status would have identified with the Obamas by viewing the couple as being similar to them. These voters would also likely assume that the Romneys who had come from more privileged upbringings were dissimilar to them.

An element that differentiated Michelle Obama’s speech from the other three was the frequency with which she used informal language. Her speech pattern was unique in that many of her statements were not delivered in complete formal sentences. She began many of her phrases by saying “you see” as though she was speaking to a friend at a less formal occasion. In their book, Longaker and Walker (2011) discuss the potential that this type of informal speaking has to create identification between rhetors and orators by saying that “many people […] speak so carefully and so correctly that they rarely transgress the rules of proper grammar, making for an unusually stilted speech that some would judge as trying too hard” whereas “[t]he ability to casually insert a “y’all” or a “he don’t” into an otherwise steady stream of correct English tells us the speaker isn’t worried about social rank” (p. 237). Michelle Obama’s choice to make small grammatical errors or speak with informal prose likely made her seem more relatable to her audience. Longaker and Walker’s (2011) book also stresses that these types of grammatical choices must be used sparingly, so as to maintain an image of intelligence in the speaker, and also to show respect for the audience. Michelle Obama’s use of informal language created an

100

intimate tone within her speech. Through this means, she was able to identify with Americans of lower socioeconomic status.

5.3.5 Discussion Both the Romneys and Obamas attempted to identify with voters of lower socioeconomic status by sharing personal histories that began with economic struggle and ended with success. The

Romneys attempted to overcome their perceived ethos of elitism by sharing personal histories.

Conversely the Obamas fought against accusations that the poor economy was the fault of the president by treating the recession as an inevitable challenge.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama each appealed to the fears and vulnerabilities of their voter-bases. Mitt Romney warned voters that with President Obama in power, their struggles would continue, whereas Barack Obama threatened the agency of his voters and implied that the elite would control their fate if they chose to vote against him. Mitt Romney assigned blame for the troubled economic times to the president, while Barack Obama sought to deflect blame for these challenges, and rather glorify economic struggle and the future victory over these challenges.

Ann Romney and Michelle Obama each sought to strengthen the ethos of their husband.

Additionally, each wife attempted to put forth her husband as an example of hard work. Ann

Romney and Michelle Obama both used American dream narratives to identify with their voter- bases.

The Romneys and Obamas used many similar rhetorical strategies to appeal to Americans of lower socioeconomic status. They each relied heavily on identification, ethos, and pathos appeals. The Obamas, however, were likely more effective in identifying with Americans of lower socioeconomic status and the middle-class because they created wedges between elite and

101

average Americans and were likely perceived to be more similar to Americans of lower socioeconomic status than were the Romneys.

5.4 Appeals to Female Voters 5.4.1 Mitt Romney In his speech, Mitt Romney overtly praised women and made clear claims about his appreciation for them. It is likely that some of these claims were made with great clarity in attempts to combat the accusation that The Republican Party was waging a “war on women” (which was discussed in the Rhetorical Situation section of this chapter).

It is common knowledge that members of the Republican Party have typically espoused traditional viewpoints of gender and gender roles. Therefore, the Romneys’ appeals to women in their voter base could rely on these traditional viewpoints. Additionally, Republicans have defended traditional family and marriage structures. Consequently, much of the praise of women in Mitt and Ann Romney’s speeches were strongly tied to the role of motherhood in family.

In his remarks, Mitt Romney used his parents’ marriage as an example of gender equality. He did so by stating that “My mom and dad were true partners, a life lesson that shaped me by everyday example” (Listitude, 2012, 16:08). He then attempted to appeal to career-driven women by stating that “When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, ‘Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?’” (Listitude, 2012, 16:15). While Mitt

Romney overtly established that his mother and father were equal partners, he chose to use the traditionally feminine adjective “beautiful” to describe her voice.

Mitt Romney also praised his wife Ann Romney and the role of mothers generally when he reflected upon the early days of his career:

These were tough days, on Ann particularly. She was heroic through it all. Five boys, with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then and

102

I'd call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that doesn't help get the homework done or the kids out the door to school. And I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to. (Listitude, 2012, 18:30)

At the beginning of the passage above Mitt Romney glorified the role of mothers by describing his wife using the word “heroic” (Listitude, 2012, 18:30). He also made the overt claim that Ann

Romney’s job was both harder and more important than his. Mitt Romney’s choice to describe motherhood in this way was risky, because while it allowed him to praise the sacrifice of mothers, it also had the potential of sounding patronizing to audience members.

Mitt Romney’s perceptions of womanhood and Ann Romney’s choice to stay home with children assumed a level of socioeconomic privilege that not all Americans shared. Because Mitt

Romney’s viewpoint regarding women and motherhood were somewhat indicative of his socioeconomic status, it may have made this narrative difficult to relate to for some audience members.

Throughout his speech, Mitt Romney highlighted a traditional model of family. For example, he always paired his mention of mothers and fathers together. He made no mention of single parent households or families with parents of the same sex. These rhetorical choices were reflective of a Republican view of family which had generally embraced heteronormative gender roles and relations.

Because Republicans had held a traditional view of marriage and families, much of Mitt

Romney’s audience would take no notice, or have no objection to his choice of ignoring diversity within families. In this way, Mitt Romney’s appeal acted as a “terministic screen.” As mentioned previously, the term “terministic screen” was used by Kenneth Burke to describe specific of terminologies that reflect and select specific versions of reality, while simultaneously deflecting

103

other versions of reality. When Mitt Romney addressed parents as mothers and fathers, he selected a version of reality that favoured traditional families. His omission of same-sex parents or single parents deflected other, less traditional forms of family. The selection of this particular version of reality through Mitt Romney’s terminology was likely not seen as problematic to a traditional Republican audience. It may, however, have presented issues for less traditional

Americans.

In his speech, Mitt Romney tried to identify with parents by referencing the experience of raising young children. As was mentioned earlier, he stated

If you ask Ann and I what we'd give, to break up just one more fight between the boys, or wake up in the morning and discover a pile of kids asleep in our room. Well, every mom and dad knows the answer to that.” (Listitude, 2012, 18:00)

With the phrase “Well, every mom and dad knows the answer to that” (Listitude, 2012, 18:16),

Mitt Romney created a community of parents with privileged knowledge, and positioned himself and Ann Romney within that community. Parents in his audience were likely to reflect on times when their own children were small and share in the longing feeling that Mitt Romney described.

The shared set of emotions and the sense of community brought about through this appeal likely worked to bond audiences to Mitt Romney.

Last, in attempting to appeal to a female voter-base, Mitt Romney described ways that he had worked with women in his professional life. He stated

As Governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman Lieutenant Governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials were women, and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies. (Listitude, 2012, 17:15)

While Mitt Romney attempted to prove his allegiance to women through relating the work he had done with women during his career, these statements may have seemed contrived to some audiences.

104

Mitt Romney’s method of appealing to female voters was overt praise. He also attempted to present himself as an ally to women by sharing his resume of working with women in the past. However, much of this rhetoric may have been perceived by audiences to be forced because it was likely crafted as a response to the alleged accusations of the

Republican “war on women.”

5.4.2 Ann Romney Ann Romney was well-situated to make appeals to women because of her gender. She was able to create identification with her female audience members by using inclusive words like “we” when discussing issues that would be of interest to women.

To discuss the challenges faced by women who care for family members, Ann Romney said “We're the mothers. We're the wives. We're the grandmothers. We're the big sisters. We're the little sisters and we are the daughters” (Republican National Convention, 2012, 5:24-5:33).

The use of inclusive language such as “we” or “us” was effective in grammatically creating a shared identity. Ann Romney positioned herself in a group with her female audience, and attempted to erase or overlook other divisions that may have separated them.

Ann Romney also effectively established connections with her female audience by illustrating experiences that she and they had likely shared. She attempted to pay tribute to women and their sacrifice by stating that women “do a little bit more” (Republican National

Convention, 2012, 6:00), and “work a little bit harder” (6:04). Ann Romney’s gender identity presented her with advantages when appealing to women in this way. If Ann Romney’s statements about women doing more and working harder were made by a man, they might have sounded patronizing. But because Ann Romney was a member of the group that she was praising, she was able to speak to them as an insider.

105

By establishing herself as a member of the group early on, Ann Romney gained her female audience’s trust. Her praises of women became more overt and reached a climax when she yelled

“I love you women!” (5:42).This exclamation acted as an apostrophe or an interruption

(Woodward, 2011, p. 154) in Ann Romney’s formal speech. Through it, she separated women out from the rest of her audience and spoke to them directly. This type of flattery could be made in Ann Romney’s speech because of her feminine ethos. If Mitt Romney (or another male speaker) shouted “I love you women!” in his speech, it would likely have be considered both awkward and inappropriate by audiences. Ann Romney’s positioning and ethos allowed her liberties when addressing female audience members.

Fighting back against accusations the Romney family was “just too perfect” (Schorsch,

2012), Ann Romney stated

I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a storybook marriage. Well, let me tell you something. In the storybooks I read, there never were long, long rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once, and those storybooks never seemed to have chapters called MS or breast cancer. A storybook marriage? Nope, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage. (Republican National Convention, 2012, 11:55)

Ann Romney’s description of her and Mitt Romney’s marriage attempted to shatter the illusion that the Romneys had lived a fairy tale existence. Prior to the RNC, Ann Romney had been criticized for not having pursued a professional career. Her statement about raising sons also challenged the notion that staying home with five children was easier than working outside the home might have been.

Because Republicans are more likely than Democrats to marry young, and are reported to have more children on average than Democrats do (Brooks, 2004), stay-at-home mothers in the

RNC audience would likely have identified with Ann Romney’s description of being cooped up inside a house with small children. The audience laughed after she described that situation.

106

In addition to effectively defending her career as a homemaker, Ann Romney tactfully mentioned the illnesses and health problems that she had faced. Rather than going into detail about her illnesses or her suffering, Ann Romney allowed her brief mention of her health issues to highlight her strength and humility. This was a strong choice in her speech. Rather than seeking sympathy, Ann Romney merely mentioned that she and Mitt Romney had not had a perfect life. By doing so in this way she may have garnered some admiration from her audience, and projected herself as a strong woman.

Ann Romney’s decision to describe Mitt Romney’s and her marriage using the specific words “real marriage” (Republican National Convention, 2012, 12:21) worked to counter the accusations that their family was “fake” (Sheppard, 2012). This line in her speech garnered intense applause.

Ann Romney’s feminine ethos allowed her to effectively praise women in her RNC speech. She gained the trust of female audience members by establishing herself as a member of their group. Last, Ann Romney presented herself as a woman of strength by tactfully discussing her life as a stay-at-home parent who had faced severe health challenges.

5.4.3 Barack Obama In his speech, Barack Obama only made one statement that overtly valorized women. This statement, however, did not dwell on women specifically. Rather, it grouped women with various other demographics. The statement was “We have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings—men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews” (ABC News, 2012b,

20:21). While being inclusive of women, this remark was not directed exclusively at them, and thus, it became more about equalizing various groups rather than appealing to female voters specifically.

107

Instead of praising women overtly as the Romneys had, Barack Obama chose simply to add female protagonists to the American dream narratives that he shared.

For example when discussing the potential that children have to succeed in the United

States, President Obama said

We believe that a little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could be the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States—and it's in our power to give her that chance. (ABC News, 2012b, 29:40)

The Democratic Party has typically proclaimed a less traditional view of gender roles than the

Republican Party. Barack Obama’s narratives that involved women following diverse pursuits

(including becoming a business person, a scientist, or the president) may have been indicative of this.

When discussing families, rather than saying “mothers and fathers,” as Mitt Romney had throughout his speech, Barack Obama instead chose to say “parents” which could potentially have included single parents, and same-sex parents. This small choice pushed President Obama’s speech away from the traditional view of families, and allowed for greater diversity which was consistent with the policies and viewpoints of the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama’s speech only made one reference to policy that affected women directly.

As mentioned earlier, he said “Washington politicians […] want to […] control health care choices that women should make for themselves” (ABC News, 2012b, 33:45). While this statement was brief, it functioned strongly as a pathos appeal. Abortion has been a very emotionally charged issue in U.S. politics. President Obama’s statement pushed female audience members to fear that Washington politicians would take freedom and agency away from them. It also created an adversarial group (Washington politicians) who Barack Obama and women could unite against together. Burke argued that identification often occurs between groups that are

108

presented with a common foe (Woodward, 2003, p. 26). While Barack Obama could not identify with women in the same way that a female speaker might have, he was able to ignite the emotions of female members in his audience by aligning himself with them against a common enemy.

Barack Obama’s strategy in appealing to female voters was to make subtle references to women filling a diverse variety of roles. Additionally, he used inclusive language to talk about parents and families. Last, he aligned himself with women to fight against Washington politicians.

5.4.4 Michelle Obama Michelle Obama’s speech appealed to female voters in much the same way her husband’s did.

Specifically, Michelle Obama shared stories that featured female protagonists. For example, she used Barack Obama’s grandmother as an example of overcoming challenges that many women have faced in America. She did so by saying

Barack's grandmother started out as a secretary at a community bank, and she moved quickly up the ranks but like so many women, she hit a glass ceiling. And for years, men no more qualified than she was—men she had actually trained— were promoted up the ladder ahead of her, earning more and more money while Barack's family continued to scrape by. (ABC News, 2012a, 11:00)

This statement was unique when compared with Mitt and Ann Romney’s appeals to women, because while Mitt Romney made mention of women holding political office, and Ann Romney made mention of “working moms who love their jobs but would like to work just a little less to spend more time with the kids,” (ABC News, 2012a, 4:00), neither of the Romneys’ speeches mentioned specific barriers, injustices, or challenges that might be met by women in the workplace. Moreover, Ann Romney’s statement about working moms implied that careers outside of the home are subordinate to familial roles for women. In contrast, Michelle Obama’s statement would have appealed to working women in the U.S. who had faced challenges related

109

to their gender. Michelle Obama’s acknowledgement of these struggles likely helped women who had faced similar experiences to identify with her speech.

When Michelle Obama discussed motherhood, she did so using only examples from her own life. In contrast, the Romneys’ speeches strongly tied womanhood to motherhood. Neither

Mitt Romney nor Ann Romney addressed or presumed the presence of women who might be career oriented or not interested in having children..

Michelle Obama attempted equate the role of motherhood with power. She did so by saying “And I say all of this tonight not just as First Lady, and not just as a wife. You see, at the end of the day, my most important title is still ‘mom-in-chief’” (ABC News, 2012a, 23:30).

Michelle Obama’s statement replaced “commander” in the president’s military title

“commander-in-chief” with “mom.” This newly title created relied on the American emotional repertoire or the “stable range of emotions shared by a large group of people […] often in response to […] objects that these people all encounter in their […] lives” (Longaker & Walker,

2011, p. 223). “Commander-in-chief” is the most senior military title in the United States, and would have been familiar to Michelle Obama’s audience. They would likely have associated this title with power and strength.

Additionally, when Michelle Obama put forth this statement she minimized the prestigious role of being first lady, as well as the role of being a wife. She did so by using the word “just” prior to naming each of these two responsibilities. Michelle Obama validated motherhood (for her personally) by prioritizing it above these other important roles in her life.

When considering policy that affected female voters, Michelle Obama echoed Barack

Obama’s position that women should have a choice regarding reproductive health issues. This emotionally-charged issue pushed a Democratic voter-base to identify with the Obamas not based on shared experience necessarily, but rather, on a shared set of values and beliefs.

110

5.4.5 Discussion The Romneys and Obamas used very different strategies in their attempts to appeal to female voters. The Romneys made very overt and enthusiastic efforts to praise women. They focussed on motherhood as an essential characteristic of femininity and reinforced traditional family structures. To identify with women and parents, they made reference to raising children and taking care of family members.

By comparison, the Obamas tried to make their discussion of women more subtle. They used female protagonists in many of their American dream narratives. Michelle Obama appealed to working women by sharing the challenged that Barack Obama’s grandmother had faced during her career. Additionally, the Obamas appealed to the emotions of their audience through their reference to the issue of reproductive rights. Lastly, Michelle Obama associated the role of motherhood with power and limited her discussion of motherhood to include only references to her own life.

The variations between the Romneys’ and Obamas’ speeches were indicative of the events preceding the national conventions of 2012. Most notably, the Romneys strove to combat the accusations that the Republican Party was waging a “war against women.”

Additionally, the differences between the Romneys’ and Obamas’ appeals to women demonstrated the ways in which womanhood and femininity were perceived by the Democratic and Republican voters in 2012. The Romneys presented a view of femininity that was paired motherhood with womanhood. Conversely, the Obamas presented a greater variety of roles that women might assume through the narratives that they shared.

The Romneys made overt statements proclaiming men and women’s equality. The

Obamas chose, rather, to avoid making overt references to women’s worth. This may have

111

strengthened the Obamas’ speeches for some audiences because this speech tactic communicated that the equality of men and women goes without saying.

Variations between the Romneys’ and Obamas’ appeals to women were indicative of the rhetorical situation that preceded the national conventions of 2012. They also seemed to be largely influenced by partisan differences regarding what roles define womanhood, and how women should be addressed.

5.5 Appeals to Christian Voters 5.5.1 Mitt Romney In his speech, Mitt Romney made efforts to reassure voters who may have experienced apprehension toward his Mormon faith. His rhetorical strategy for addressing this issue was to minimize the differences between Mormonism and other branches of Christianity. He also attempted to appeal to Mormons and other Christian groups through a shared set of values by using general references to faith and God. In order to identify with the Republican Party (which has held strong historical ties to Christian political movements) it was essential that Mitt Romney overcome the cultural reputation of his Mormon faith.

Mitt Romney sought to minimize differences between Mormonism and other groups by only briefly mentioning his religion specifically when discussing his childhood. In relating his family’s history and upbringing, he stated

We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don't remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to (Listitude, 2012, 14:40).

Mitt Romney’s claim presented the differences between his faith and his friends’ faiths as being inconsequential. It also portrayed Mitt Romney as a stereotypical American boy to whom his audiences could relate.

112

Mitt Romney continued to bridge gaps and identify with Christian voters by making broad claims that would be accepted by a general Christian audience. For example, he pointed to the power of faith by saying that “If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family—and God's love—this world would be a far more gentle and better place”

(Listitude, 2012, 15:30). This statement sought identification through using what Burke described as “terms that hide division” (Woodward, 2003, p. 26). It appealed in a very general sense to Christians while not singling out any specific Christian denomination. The statement melded then concept of loving families with the presence of God. It also made the claim that the world’s grievances could be somewhat alleviated if more people put trust in God. This non- controversial statement could be heard and agreed upon by all Christians, or even more broadly, by people of all faiths that believe in a loving God.

Throughout his speech, Mitt Romney made generalized references to faith which attempted to position himself as an advocate for mainstream Christian ideologies. Longaker and

Walker (2011) define ideologies as being “collections of ideas [that] form a community” (p.

200). Thus by advocating for broadly accepted Christian tenets, Mitt Romney established himself as a member of a larger community of Christians in America.

The issue of abortion has held ideological importance for the political Christian right in the United States. Mitt Romney used this issue (in conjunction with traditional marriage and the freedom of religion) to identify with Christian voters by stating

As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America's first liberty: the freedom of religion (Listitude, 2012, 34:15).

This claim, which aligned Mitt Romney with the pro-life views of other prominent Christian politicians, would likely have reassured his constituents that Mitt Romney’s version of

Christianity bore important resemblances to other more familiar denominations.

113

5.5.2 Ann Romney Ann Romney also sought to overcome stigmas associated with Mormonism and make the

Romneys seem more relatable to a mainstream Christian audience. Her speech used three main strategies to appeal to Christian voters. First, like Mitt Romney, she made general references to faith. Second, she used Biblical phraseology that would be familiar to many members of her audience. And third, despite being a convert to the Mormon faith, Ann Romney chose to describe herself as having been Episcopalian (which is a Protestant faith that would be more familiar than

Mormonism to much of her audience).

Ann Romney’s use of religious terms characterized the couple as people of faith. When describing Mitt Romney’s work ethic and dedication, Ann Romney stated that, “No one will work harder. No one will care more. And no one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live” (Republican National Convention, 2012, 13:27).

While this statement did not make bold claims about the Romneys’ specific belief system, Ann

Romney’s use of the words “heaven and earth” (13:30) showcased the couple as people of faith.

Ann Romney used biblical phraseology and scriptural terms that would have been familiar to a general Christian audience. These terms functioned as “terministic screens” (or filters of human perception). For example, when speaking of Mitt Romney’s active participation in volunteer endeavors, Ann Romney mentioned his church service and then said that “There is no greater joy [than service]. Give and it shall be given unto you” (Republican National

Convention, 2012, 17:20). The phrase “give and it shall be given unto you” came directly from the Bible verse Luke 6:38 (King James Version). This statement would have been familiar to

Christian Republicans and could act as a screen that would reflect a Christian worldview.

Conversely, those who were unfamiliar with the scriptural reference may have taken no notice of the statement at all. Thus, this phrase could operate as a signifier for members of the group of American Christians.

114

Finally, Ann Romney attempted to create a bridge between the Protestant faiths and

Mormonism in her speech. She did so by saying

When Mitt and I met and fell in love, we were determined not to let anything stand in a way of our future. I was Episcopalian, he was a Mormon. We were very young, both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage. And you know what, we just didn't care. (Republican National Convention, 2012, 10:33)

Ann Romney did not mention in her speech that she had converted to Mormonism prior to marrying Mitt Romney. This omission acted as an aposiopesis in Ann’s speech. Longaker and

Walker (2011) define aposiopesis as “the gesture of pointedly not saying something” (p. 156).

By creating the impression that Ann Romney is or was Episcopalian, she may have made herself seem more relatable to mainstream Christian audience members.

Ann Romney’s speech showcased the Romneys as people of faith. She spoke directly to

Christian constituents through the use of terministic screens. Additionally she identified with a broad Christian audience by omitting the story of her conversion from Episcopalian

Protestantism to Mormonism.

5.5.3 Barack Obama Barack Obama’s speech demonstrated inclusivity to a diversity of faiths. As mentioned previously, early in his speech, President Obama stated “We have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings—men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews” (ABC News,

2012b, 20:21). This claim portrayed a religiously diverse image of America. Religious diversity was more reflective of the demographics of voters in the Democratic Party in 2012 than the

Republican Party. According to Pew Research Centre (2012a) white Evangelical Protestants,

Mormons, white mainline Protestants, and white Catholics were more likely to be Republicans than Democrats in 2012. Conversely, Jews and religiously unaffiliated Americans were more likely to be Democrats (Pew Research Centre, 2012a, p. 2). While Mitt Romney did not

115

explicitly state that he was making references to a Christian God in his speech, one could have assumed that he was speaking of God from the perspective that his party favoured.

President Obama’s attempt to be inclusive of diverse religions would likely have appealed to his Democratic base; however, this may have opened him up to scrutiny from

Christian Americans who had claimed he was a secret Muslim in the past.

Later in his speech, Barack Obama made one reference to his personal faith by saying

And while I'm proud of what we've achieved together, I'm far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go." (ABC News, 2012b, 35:39)

By overtly stating that he prayed, President Obama attempted to identify with Christians (or other Americans) who might pray when confronted with challenges. In this quote, Barack

Obama also sought to reflect a sense of humility by stating that he was “more mindful of his failings” than he had been in the past (ABC News, 2012b, 35:42). Barack Obama then compared himself to Abraham Lincoln who is well respected by Americans of all political backgrounds.

Lincoln has been well respected by Republicans because he was a Republican president. He has also been well respected by Democratic voters because he was president during the civil war and the abolition of slavery. 84% of African Americans identified as Democrats in 2012, as compared to only 9% who identified as Republicans (Pew Research Centre, 2015a). Because slavery has been an emotional topic for African Americans in particular, the mention of Lincoln would have resonated strongly with that demographic especially within the Democratic base.

Barack Obama’s ethos as president allowed him to draw comparisons between his own experiences and the experiences of Lincoln. Mitt Romney could not have easily struck these similarities between his former responsibilities and Lincoln’s.

116

Later in his speech, Barack Obama separated faith from religion, and instead, pushed his constituents to have faith in America. He did so after relating numerous stories of inspiring

Americans who had overcome challenges. He said of these inspiring individuals

I don't know what party these men and women belong to. I don't know if they'll vote for me. But I know that their spirit defines us. They remind me, in the words of Scripture, that ours is a "future filled with hope." And if you share that faith with me—if you share that hope with me—I ask you tonight for your vote. (ABC News, 2012b, 38:30)

Despite referencing scripture, President Obama made no mention that this reference was

Biblical. Additionally, he chose to cite a non-controversial verse that reflected his 2008 presidential campaign message of hope. Throughout the entirety of Barack Obama’s speech he demonstrated that the hope of America was its people. He then fittingly asked his constituents to place faith in the spirit of America rather than in a specific deity. This rhetorical choice allowed a diverse group of voters (including atheists and agnostics) to identify with the “faith” that Obama mentioned.

5.5.4 Michelle Obama Michelle Obama made almost no mention of Christianity or God in her speech. When concluding her remarks she stated “Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America” (ABC

News, 2012a, 28:30). All four speakers finished by using some variation of this phrase. The statement “God bless America” is traditional in the social and political discourse of America.

While it has become a powerful vernacular phrase in the U.S., ending their convention speeches this way would have been an obvious choice for both the Romneys and the Obamas.

The only other statement loosely tied to religion in Michelle Obama’s speech was a brief reference to Martin Luther King Junior (MLK). She said

If a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream, and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they

117

love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream. Because in the end, more than anything else, that is the story of this country – the story of unwavering hope grounded in unyielding struggle. That is what has made my story, and Barack's story, and so many other American stories possible. (ABC News, 2012a, 23:30)

This statement was largely more tied to overcoming obstacles than to religion or faith. Despite this, Michelle Obama did make an attempt to appeal to Christian voters through allusion. She did so by referring to Martin Luther King Jr. as a “preacher.” She also chose to call his dream

“righteous.” These small choices likely gleaned some respect from Christian constituents by providing a terministic screen that reflected a worldview with which they could identify. If

Michelle Obama had chosen to say “If Martin Luther King could lift us to the mountain top with his dream…” instead she may have foregone the opportunity to speak specifically to Christian voters.

This appeal also relied heavily on pathos because it brought up several emotionally charged topics including faith, an inspirational historical figure, civil rights, and the hope to overcome unyielding struggle.

Overall, Michelle Obama’s speech steered away from discussing faith, or making overt appeals to Christian voters. This choice was interesting, given the country’s history of religious, political rhetoric.

5.5.5 Discussion The Romneys made more overt references to God and spirituality in their speeches than did the

Obamas. This is fitting when considering Sheets’, Domke’s, and Greenwald’s (2011) conclusion that “for Democrats, perceptions of […] Christian faith [are] important parts of their candidate valuations; [but] for Republicans, these perceptions dominate candidate valuations” (Sheets,

Domke & Greenwald, 2011, p. 478, emphasis in original text).

118

The Romneys also sought to overcome the stigma associated with their Mormon faith and achieve identification with Christian voters by using terms that hid divisions, and by highlighting similarities and shared ideologies between Christian people of diverse denominations.

Alternatively, the Obamas chose to focus on inclusivity of diverse religious groups, and did not make strong references to spiritual or faith-based matters in their speeches. Additionally,

Barack Obama’s speech worked to emphasize the spirit of America rather than the God of

Christianity. All Americans, regardless of their religious affiliations would likely feel an inspired allegiance to this spirit of patriotism.

5.6 Impacts of the Romneys’ and Obamas’ Speeches on the 2012 Election

In many ways, each of the four speeches were well-received by their respective voter-bases, but

Barack Obama ultimately won the 2012 election by a margin of 332 electoral votes to 206 electoral votes (Politico, 2012).

The Blaze quoted various prominent Republicans lauding Mitt Romney’s performance including Michael Reagan (the son of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan) who said

“Romney could not be better. When Dad died we lost AMERICAS cheer leader TONIGHT we have a new one. Bravo” (Howerton, 2012, capitalization in original text). Todd Starnes, a Fox

News reporter and well-known conservative columnist, also responded to the speech by tweeting

“Romney just delivered the speech that should win him the White House” (Howerton, 2012).

Despite these praises, Gallup polling (2012) reported no significant change for Mitt

Romney’s likelihood of winning the presidency after his RNC performance (Klein, 2012).

Another poll conducted by Rasmussen, however, reported a “’modest bounce,’ and [found] him leading Obama by four points” just following the RNC (Klein, 2012, para. 6). Despite their variations, neither of these polls showed a substantial or long-lasting change for Mitt Romney’s poll numbers after the RNC. His and Barack Obama’s poll numbers continued to vary by only a

119

few percentage points for the following few months, finishing in the November 2012 election when Barack Obama polled at only 3% higher than Mitt Romney (Gallup, 2012).

Of the four speeches, Ann Romney’s likely had the most varied responses. On the one hand, she connected well with a conservative base and made important strides for Mitt Romney’s campaign. In fact The Washington Times reported that Mitt Romney’s “personal approval ratings jumped 5 points overnight in […] battleground states” after Ann Romney’s speech

(Smith, 2012, para. 4). The same article even stated that Ann Romney “blew away [the] clichéd caricatures” of the elite and out-of-touch couple (Smith, 2012 para. 4). On the other hand, Ann

Romney’s speech was met with strong backlash from critics as some felt as though her frequent mention of motherhood and her choice to link familial roles to womanhood presented a monochromatic view of female identity and roles. In the media, many people made reference to

Ann Romney’s appeals to and characterizations of women. Lynn Beisner (2012) wrote a response to Ann Romney’s speech for Role Reboot (an online newspaper) in which she criticized

Ann Romney for idealizing a specific type of female identity, namely that of a familial care- taker. Beisner accused Ann’s remarks of being sexist. Beisner (2012) said

She paints a picture of mothers as these women who wear halos because they actually work harder than men. She rhapsodized in length about women being the mothers, wives, grandmothers, big sisters, little sisters, and daughters. In other words, we are only as valuable as our relationships to family members. You will notice she did not say, “we are the doctors, lawyers, senators, and CEOs” because she knows that conservatives only really love women when they stay in their tidy little domestic spheres. (Beisner, 2012, para. 2)

Beisner (2012) concluded her piece by discussing an appeal that was also analyzed in my work by stating “for the record, I was utterly unconvinced when she called out: ‘I love you, women!’

Maybe she loves those noble, angelic creatures who have magical abilities to hold the nation together. But she doesn’t love women like me” (Beisner, 2012, para. 11).

120

Similarly, The Huffington Post published a blog post which criticized Ann Romney’s claim of loving women because of policies promoted by the Republican Party which some

Americans deemed to be disadvantageous to women (MacLean, 2012).

Barack Obama’s speech was met with varied responses as well. His strong use of pathos was applauded by many commentators. The president was known for being a powerful speaker, and “Most agreed that, rhetorically, Obama delivered a solid speech, […] that […] was typical of the president's strong oratorical skills” (Fung, 2012, para. 2). While it was virtually undisputed that Barack Obama’s speech evoked powerful emotions within his audience, many criticized the president for making the same empty promises that he had made four years earlier (Fung, 2012, para. 6). According to Bret Baier from Fox News who reported on Barack’s speech "The question [was] whether […] [Obama’s] record over the last three-and-a-half years [would] trump the feeling in [the] hall” (Fung, 2012, para. 7).

Even Joe Scarborough, who is a well-known Republican politicians and cable news host

“declare[d] the speech a victory over Romney. Scarborough tweeted "The President said nothing in his speech tonight. But he said it so much better than Mitt Romney when he said nothing in

Tampa" (Fung, para. 12).

While some argued that the Barack Obama’s speech specifically lacked substance (Fung,

2012, para. 10), one might assert that how an audience is made to feel will likely have a greater impact on their voting habits than what they might have learned during a speech.

Michelle Obama’s delivery received praise from political commentators. News outlets and “pundits swooned over [Michelle] Obama’s delivery” (Shapiro, 2012, p. 2). Some conservatives argued that the speech’s content itself was not as strong as it could have been; however, there was virtually no dispute with regard to the strength of Michelle Obama’s delivery. Even right-leaning Fox News’ reporter “Chris Wallace called her delivery ‘masterful’”

121

and Karl Rove (who is also a Fox News contributor) “agreed that [Michelle] Obama’s speech was ‘very well delivered’” (Shapiro, 2012, para. 3-4).

Michelle Obama’s speech was unsurprisingly received very well by media outlets that are known for being more politically left or centrist. For example left-leaning MSNBC reported live from the DNC by stating “Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the floor of the [Republican National] [C]onvention in Tampa” (Shapiro, 2012, para. 5).

Anderson Cooper (of CNN) tweeted of Michelle Obama’s speech “never [have I] heard such a well delivered speech by a first lady ever” (Shapiro, 2012, para. 6).

The New York Times (2012b) exit polls reported that both Mitt Romney and Barack

Obama were very strongly supported by the partisan voters from each of their respective parties.

While the national convention speeches only made up a small portion of campaigning efforts that ultimately ended in the presidential election, they were representative of the larger campaigning efforts and rhetorical strategies of each of the candidates.

Specifically, polling reported that 92% of Democrats in the country voted for Barack

Obama, and 93% of Republicans voted for Mitt Romney (The New York Times, 2012b, graphic

10). As mentioned by Wlezien (2013) in the literature review of this thesis, these percentages were much higher than years previous. Comparatively 85 percent of partisans voters voted for their party’s candidate in 1980, and about 75 percent in 1972 (Wlezien, 2013, p. 174).

Additionally The New York Times indicated that 50% of independent voters voted for Mitt

Romney while only 45% voted for Barack Obama. Despite this, Barack Obama was more able to sway independent voters in “important [electoral] states like New Hampshire” (New York

Times, 2012b, graphic 10).

The percentages of partisan voters who supported their respective candidates during the

2012 election were virtually tied. Where the gap was accounted for was how much of the country

122

was comprised by Democrats and Republicans. In the U.S. during the 2012 election 38% of

Americans identified as Democrats, whereas 32% identified as Republicans, and 29% identified as independents.

Demographics that have contributed to the growth of the Democratic base have included immigrant families. A 2012 national survey reported that legal Hispanic immigrants who had become American citizens favoured the Democratic Party over the Republican Party by 69% to

17% (Blake, 2013, para. 5). Hispanic immigrants who were not yet citizens favoured Democrats even more starkly by 67% to 13% (Blake, 2013, para 5). Additionally, despite the fact that

Republicans have more children than Democrats do, young people are reportedly likely to be more liberal than their parents on social, religious, and economic issues (Kiley & Dimock, 2014;

Shannon, 2015). Thus, younger voters are also more likely to align themselves with the

Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

If partisan demographics in America continue to favour Democrats in the future,

052.360Republican candidates will have to craft rhetoric that will be appealing to more diverse groups than simply Republicans voters. Another possibility might be for the Republican Party to develop a strategy to expand the size of its voter base by encouraging Americans who currently consider themselves to be Democrats or unaffiliated to change their allegiances to the

Republican Party.

123

Chapter Six: Conclusion

This thesis has presented a snapshot view of the rhetoric of the Republican and Democratic

Parties during the 2012 presidential campaign, and discussed some of the impacts of this rhetoric. A strength of this study was that the four speeches which were analyzed were delivered within one week of each other. This meant that this research could be built around a rhetorical situation that was shared between both political parties. This shared situation made the comparative nature of this thesis justifiable. As was mentioned in my literature review, there have been no previous comparative studies of this type because finding an appropriate data set is difficult. My study has provided insight into this area.

Additionally, my study which emphasized pathos appeals, ethos appeals, and identification branched out from many other political studies which most often prioritize logos appeals. While I acknowledge that logos appeals are fundamental, and obviously played a large role in the 2012 election and the speeches analyzed in this thesis, my choice to deemphasize it in the focus of my research has allowed me to add to the body of current academic knowledge in the field of political rhetoric in a way that has differed from many other rhetorical analyses.

Admittedly, logos did, however, play a part in my study in the selection of which themes to focus on in my research.

Furthermore, despite the fact that my study has not focussed on political ideologies, these ideologies have a strong impact on voter preferences and turn-out. The intense political polarization during which this study has been conducted may prove to be a fundamental moment in understanding the future direction of the Republican Party. Consequently, this thesis may provide insight to other studies of partisan rhetoric and ideology. Also when discussing ideologies, it is important to note that in addition to working to persuade, the rhetoric analyzed within this thesis was crafted to clarify and reinforce particular ideologies.

124

Using the findings that have come about through my analysis, I am now able to make broader comparisons between the rhetoric used at the RNC and DNC of 2012. Here, I include more comments regarding the stylistic choices of the speakers, and I also outline avenues of further research and new perspectives that might be explored within the vein of my topic of inquiry. To conclude this thesis, I will make more general hypotheses regarding the potential future of the Republican Party based on its rhetoric.

6.1 Comparisons between the RNC and DNC rhetoric 6.1.1 Table 3: Research Findings

The following table summarizes my research findings and offers a visual representation of the major tendencies and rhetorical strategies that were used by the Romneys and the Obamas during their 2012 RNC and DNC speeches.

125

Table 3

Research Findings Orator Socioeconomic Appeals Female Voters Christian Voters Mitt  Used business experience to  Made overt praise of women—more  Minimized differences between Romney demonstrate expertise specifically motherhood Mormonism and other forms of  Attempted to demonstrate that his  Stated that men and women were Christianity success was earned equal  Appealed to value systems that would  Argued that the president was  Made reference to traditional be accepted by wide varieties of unable to help America—because of families (with mothers and fathers) Christian groups lack of experience and knowledge  Mentioned times where he worked  Positioned himself a member of a  Appealed to audience fears that with women professionally wider group of Christians by economy would worsen if Obama embracing ideologies that Mormons were in office for a second term and other Christians would share

Ann  Acted as a character witness of Mitt  Identified with women through  Made general references to faith and Romney Romney and painted their life as a grammatical forms (using “us” or God which voters from diverse realization of the American Dream “we”) religions could relate to  Shared stories of the couple’s  Overtly praised women (specifically  Used biblical phraseology humble beginnings mothers) and their efforts  Described herself as Episcopalian  Argued that attacking success(as  Attempted to dispel myths that the rather than Mormon Barack Obama had done) was un- Romneys’ life had been “perfect” American and therefore, not relatable

126

Orator Socioeconomic Appeals Female Voters Christian Voters Barack  Avoided responsibility for the poor  Used female protagonists (alternated  Said that America had improved its Obama economy (and spoke of it as an with male protagonists) when telling rights for “Christians, Muslims, and inevitability) American dream narratives Jews”  Assigned responsibility for  Used the word “parents” rather than  Compared himself to Abraham Lincoln America’s triumphs to the audience “mothers” and “fathers” to be more (and made mention of praying for  Glorified economic hardship and its inclusive of family structures that do America) potential reward not follow a traditional model  Pushed audience to have faith in  United himself with the American  Made reference to abortion and America (rather than discussing faith in people through grammatical forms stated that women should make their a specific deity) (using “us” or “we”) own health decisions  Appealed to audience fears that the 1% could lord over the 99% if Romney were elected president

Michelle  Built up Barack Obama’s ethos and  Used female protagonists in her  Made no overt mention of religion or Obama her own by using their histories as examples of hard work and God aside from closing her speech with examples of the American dream realization of the American dream “God bless you, and God bless realized  Shared the story of Barack Obama’s America”  Made mention of the fact that the grandmother facing barriers in the  Referenced MLK as “a young Obamas lived with a lot of student workplace because of her gender preacher” with a “righteous dream” debt  Brought power to the role of  Shared stories of Americans who motherhood by using the phrase had overcome adversity “mom-in-chief” to describe herself  Used informal language to identify with audiences

127

6.1.2 Appeals to Americans of Lower Socioeconomic Statuses When discussing the economy and appealing to Americans of lower socioeconomic status, the Romneys and Obamas used some similar strategies. Where Barack Obama’s speech outshone Mitt Romney’s was in this stylistic choice to enthusiastically empower the audience.

Barack Obama assigned the American people the responsibility for the country’s triumphs, and gave long pauses to allow the audience not only to take in what he was saying, but to applaud his remarks, thereby allowing excitement to build to greater heights. The crowd’s energy was ignited, and at times President Obama had to pause and wait for the crowd’s roaring to quiet before continuing. His slow and passionate delivery, combined with his assignation of success to the American people made his speech compelling to his audience. This emotional response was able to (at least momentarily) mask to his audience any responsibility that Barack Obama might have had for the poor economy.

6.1.3 Appeals to Female Voters Contrasting the Romneys’ overt praises of women, the Obamas made few mentions of women or womanhood. The Obamas’ speeches did little to differentiate female voters from male voters. Some might argue that this lack of differentiation is a rhetorical indicator of equality between the genders in the Democratic Party (as compared to the Republican Party). Despite this fact, much of the difference in the Republicans’ and Democrats’ speeches when considering female voters may be a result of the ideological underpinnings that are foundational to each party. Because Republicans are more likely to marry young, support heterosexual relationships, and have a more traditional view of what elements comprise heteronormative roles and responsibilities (as was mentioned earlier in this thesis), it is likely that their overt differentiation between the sexes, and their appeals and praises made specifically to women resonated strongly with a conservative voter-base.

128

Additionally, the rhetorical situation (which included the Republican “War on Women”) resulted in some reactionary rhetoric that included overt praise for women by the Romneys.

6.1.4 Appeals to Christian Voters Religion was a much less prominent element of the Obamas’ speeches than the

Romneys’. Rather than pushing Americans to have faith in a specific deity, President Obama asked them to have faith in America. This choice provided a more broad definition of faith, which Americans of all religions (or those who were non-religious) could subscribe to.

The Democratic Party is more religiously diverse than the Republican Party, which likely accounted for Barack Obama’s attempts to be inclusive of the three western religions. In contrast, the Republican Party has higher percentages of religious people (as well as higher rates of Christianity specifically) and members of the Republican Party are more inclined to accept traditional models of family as being ideal. A poll conducted by Pew Research Center in 2012 reported that 77% of Democrats “never doubt the existence of God” as compared with 92% of

Republicans (Pew Research Center, 2012b). In the past decade, the “proportion of Democrats saying they never doubt God’s existence has fallen 11 [percentage] points […] By contrast, the percentage of Republicans saying they never doubt God’s existence is as large today (92%) as it was a decade ago, or a quarter century ago” (Pew Research Center, 2012b, section 3 para. 2).

Additionally, 60% of Democrats stated they “have old-fashioned values about family and marriage” compare to 88% of Republicans (Pew Research Center, 2012b, section 3, para. 4).

Considering the importance that traditional families and religion (and more specifically

Christianity) plays for the Republican Party and its voter-base, it stands to reason that the

Romneys placed more emphasis on these topics and sought to identify with their potential

Republican voters.

129

6.2 Avenues for Future Research While this thesis was able to provide some insight into partisan rhetoric of the 2012 election, limitations of its method have presented opportunities for further research to grow out of this study. Future studies might be dedicated to approaching the 2012 presidential election through a more interdisciplinary means—by taking on the policies or the ideologies of either party in addition to their rhetoric. This type of study could expand its dataset to include not only the four political speeches, but also the campaign websites and platforms of the candidates. Questions for this study might use my findings regarding rhetoric to ask what policy ideas each candidate had that would have (or not have) reinforced (or weakened) from their rhetorical appeals to people of lower socioeconomic statuses, to female voters, and to Christian voters.

Alternatively, a more in-depth study of partisan rhetoric might be undertaken in examining any one of the three of the subgroups of Americans I have selected as demographics of this study.

Lastly, future researchers may be interested in performing a study that asks the same questions as my study over the course of a number of electoral cycles, and then comparing and contrasting the findings to indicate trends of partisan rhetoric from the RNC and DNC over a longer period of time, and under various circumstances and evolving rhetorical situations.

6.3 Conclusions and the Potential Future of the Republican Party The speeches examined played only a small role in the 2012 election, but these speeches were representative of partisan rhetoric that was put forth by either party during that year. Because of the United States’ intense polarization, it is likely that for the survival of the Republican Party, we must see some major shifts in its ideology or rhetoric. In 2012 Pew Research Center reported that

In contrast to Republicans, Democrats have grown increasingly diverse. A narrow majority of Democrats (55%) are non-Hispanic whites, down from 64% in 2000.

130

As in recent years, most Democrats are women (59%). And while the average age of self-described Democrats has risen since 2008—from 46.9 to 47.7—Democrats continue to be younger than Republicans on average (47.7 vs. 49.7). (Pew Research, 2012b, Section 8, para. 5)

As the face of America and its leadership continues to change with increased immigration, more educated female voters, higher rates of secularism, and greater wealth disparity, it is likely that the Republican party may face challenges in the future if it attempts to retain the same style of rhetoric that it has historically used to appeal to a traditional, conservative, and religious (more specifically Christian) base.

The Romneys’ and Obamas’ each made strong ethical appeals, pathetic appeals, and attempts to identify with their constituents at the RNC and DNC of 2012. Since the 2012 election, up until the time of the completion of this thesis (in 2015), there has been increased polarization in the ideologies and rhetoric of the Republican and Democratic parties. The

Republican Party has yet to accommodate its rhetoric to a more diverse America, and is entering the 2016 election season with increasingly extreme and non-inclusive rhetoric (most notably in the remarks of Republican candidate Donald Trump). This rhetoric may hurt the party.

As mentioned the 2012 election and the one set to occur in 2016 have come at a pivotal time for the Republican Party. The polarized political climate of this point in U.S. history and the partisan identities of voters have been influenced and perpetuated through the rhetorical choices of each party.

While partisan supporters in 2012 had positive reviews of the speeches of each of their respective candidates, the decline in Americans identifying as Republicans may push the party to find new strategies to appeal to a wider subset of the population. If the Republican Party does not adapt to changes occurring within the United States, it will likely face great challenges in the

131

future to achieve the necessary votes to continue to contend with the Democratic Party in modern

America.

132

References

ABC News. (2012a). Michelle Obama DNC speech 2012 complete: “How hard you work” more

important than income. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVGAI8o5i4o

ABC News. (2012b). President Barack Obama DNC speech complete: Romney in 'cold

war mind-warp' - DNC 2012. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd8MFmUDbg4

Alberts, S. (2012, July 23). Majority of voters blame president for bad economy. The

Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-hill-poll-majority-of-

voters-blame-president-for-bad-economy

Alstin, Z. (2012). Worshipping princes Romney and Obama. Eureka Street, 22(20), 8-9.

Aristotle, Jebb, R. C., & Sandys, J. E. (1909). The rhetoric of Aristotle: A translation.

Cambridge, England: University Press.

The Associated Press. (2012, June 5). Romney Could Steal Pennsylvania As 2008 Obama Voters

‘Disappointed’ By President. The Associated Press. Retrieved from

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/05/romney-could-steal-pennsylvania-as-2008-

obama-voters-disappointed-by-president/

Atwater, D. F. (2007). Senator Barack Obama; the rhetoric of hope and the American dream.

Journal of Black Studies, 38(2), 121-129.

Bafumi, J. & Shapiro, R. (2009). A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 1.

Baker, S & Campbell J. (2010, May 17). Mitt Romney's religion: A five factor model for

analysis of media representation of Mormon identity. Journal of Media and Religion,

9(2), 99-121.

133

Bart, P. (2012). It's hard to relate to so much likability. Daily Variety, 316(54), 4.

Baumlin, J. S. (2001a). Ethos. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. (pp. 263-276). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Beisner, L. (2012, August 31). Ann Romney does not love women like me. [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-08-ann-

romney-does-not-love-me

Berlinski, E. G. (1997). Kenneth Burke, identification, and psychoanalytic theory. The Catholic

University of America: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Bible, King James, and Various. (1996). King James Bible. Project Gutenberg.

Biesecker, B. (2005). "Reviewed Work: Rhetorical Democracy: Discursive Practices of Civic

Engagement by Gerard A. Hauser, Amy Grim." Rhetoric Review: 227-30.

Bimber, B. (2014). Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the

personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology &

Politics, 11(2), 130-150.

Bitzer, L. F. (1992). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25(1), 1-14.

Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (1990). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the

present. Boston: Bedford.

Blair, D. M. (2001). No ordinary time: Eleanor Roosevelt's address to the 1940 Democratic

National Convention. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 4(2), 203-222.

Blake, A. (2013, June 22). Poll: Illegal immigrants favor Democrats 54 percent to 19 percent.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-

politics/wp/2013/07/22/poll-illegal-immigrants-favor-democrats-54-19-percent/

Bohan, C. (2012, August 27). Romney, Obama family missions: Humanize the candidates.

National Journal Daily. Retrieved from GALE Academic OneFile database.

134

Brooks, D. (2004, December 7). The new red-diaper babies. The New York Times. Retrieved

from

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1260162000&en=ebdde

83f03fe6d2e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&_r=0

Brooks, J. (2011, August 5). Five myths about Mormonism. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-

mormonism/2011/08/03/gIQAyIhTwI_story.html

Burke, K. (1990). From Language as symbolic action. In Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (Ed.), The

rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present.(p. 1035). Boston:

Bedford. (Original work published 1966).

Burke, K. (1951). Rhetoric—old and new. The Journal of General Education, 5(3), 202-209.

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Campbell, D. E., Green, J. C., & Monson, J. Q. (2012). The stained glass ceiling: Social contact

and Mitt Romney’s “Religion problem.” Political Behavior, 34(2), 277-299.

Capehart, J. (2013, December 2). The GOP might as well be dead. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/12/02/the-

gop-might-as-well-be-dead/

Caswell, T. (2012, November 11). 1860 vs. 2012 electoral college maps. Retrieved from

http://www.cazwizzle.com/mod/page/view.php?id=542

Clayton, D. M. (2010). The presidential campaign of Barack Obama: A critical analysis of a

racially transcendent strategy. New York: NY. Routledge.

Clifton, A. (2014, September 3). The future for the Republican Party looks very bleak. [Blog

post]. Retrieved from http://www.forwardprogressives.com/future-republican-party-

looks-bleak/

135

Cohan, W. (2012, October 5). Mitt Romney is worth $250 million. Why so little? The

Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-

romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-

2363842b7057_story.html

Coleman, S. (2013). How voters feel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Congressional Quarterly Inc. (2005). National party conventions, 1831-2004. Washington, DC:

CQ Press.

Costa, R. (2014, March 16). Conservatives worry about the Republican Party’s future. Press

Herald. Retrieved from

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/05/16/conservatives_worry_about_the_republican_part

y_s_future_/

Creamer, R. (2014, May 8). Out of touch GOP rapidly seals fate with majority of ordinary

Americans. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-

creamer/out-of-touch-gop-rapidly_b_5650490.html

Crosby, R. B. (2013). Mitt Romney's paralipsis: (Un)veiling Jesus in “faith in America.”

Rhetoric Review, 32(2), 119.

Crusto, M. F. (2009). Obama's moral capitalism: Resuscitating the American dream. University

of Miami Law Review, 63(4), 1011.

Cuccioletta, D., & Milner, H. (2013). Obama 2012 versus Obama 2008. Inroads: A Journal of

Opinion, (32), 100.

Dalton, P. D. (2006). Swing voters: Understanding late-deciders in late-modernity. Cresskill,

N.J: Hampton Press.

Daniel, G. R., & Williams, H. V. (2014). Race and the Obama phenomenon: The vision of a

more perfect multiracial union.. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi Jackson.

136

Denton, R. E., Jr. (2014). Studies of communication in the 2012 presidential campaign. Lanham:

Lexington Books.

Dowd, M. (2012). Mitt struggles to move likeability needle. Indianapolis Business Journal,

33(27), 14.

Draper, R. (2011, November 30). Building a better Mitt Romney-bot. The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/magazine/mitt-romney-

bot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Dupuis, M., & Boeckelman, K. (2008). Barack Obama, the new face of American politics.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American

politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Eligon, J., & Schwirtz, M. (2012, August 19). Senate candidate provokes ire with ‘legitimate

rape’ comment. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-

rape-comment.html

Engel, P. (2012, October 21). "Here are the most- and least-trusted news outlets in America."

Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-

and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10

Ferrara, M. S. (2013). Barack Obama and the rhetoric of hope. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &

Company.

Finkle, V. (2012, September 24). Romney-Ryan campaign releases housing white paper.

American Banker. Retrieved from GALE Academic OneFile database.

137

Fletcher, S. (2009). Opening the universe of discourse: A critical rhetorical analysis of 2008

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech.

Howard University. Retrieved from ProQuest Gradworks database.

Foss, S. K. (1989). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice. Prospect Heights, IL:

Waveland.

Fournier, R. Why (and how) Romney is playing the race card. National Journal Daily 29 Aug.

2012. Retrieved from GALE Academic OneFile database.

Fox, K. (2013). Rhetoric of commonality: An Afrocentric analysis of Jesse Jackson's discourse

and performance at the 1984 and 1988 Democratic National Conventions (Master’s

Thesis). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Fried, J. (2008). Democrats and Republicans— rhetoric and reality: Comparing the voters in

statistics and anecdotes. New York, NY: Algora.

Fung, K. (2012, September 7). Barack Obama media reactions: Pundits have mixed feelings

about DNC address. Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/barack-obama-media-

reactions_n_1863393.html

Gallup. (2012). Election 2012 Registered Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney. Gallup.

Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Gidlow, L. P. (2011). Obama, Clinton, Palin: Making history in election 2008. Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois Press.

Gill, A. (2012). A Mormon in the white house. Eureka Street, 22(6), 9-11.

Goldenberg, S. (2007, October 8). He's rich and squeaky clean, but are voters ready for a

Mormon president? The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/08/usa.mittromney

138

Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties

and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Green, L. D. (2001). Pathos. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. (pp. 554-568). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Grynaviski, J. D. (2010). Partisan bonds: Political reputations and legislative accountability.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Guth, J., & Bradberry, L. (2013). Religion in the 2012 election. American Election of 2012, (pp.

190-214). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hall, S. (2010). Encoding/Decoding. Social Theory Volume II: Power and identity in the global

era, 569-599.

Harris, H. E., Moffitt, K. R., & Squires, (2010). The Obama effect: Multidisciplinary renderings

of the 2008 campaign. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Harvard University: Institution of Politics (2014, April 29). Political issue: Wealth gap.

Retrieved from http://www.iop.harvard.edu/political-issue-wealth-gap

Hauser, G. A., & McClellan, E. D. (2009). Vernacular rhetoric and social movements:

Performances of resistance in the rhetoric of the everyday. Active voices: Composing a

rhetoric of social movements. Retrieved from http://rhetorics-of-social-

change.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vernacular+Rhetoric+Hauser.pdf

Hauser, G., & Grim, A. (Eds.). (2004). Rhetorical democracy: Discursive practices of civic

engagement. London, England: Routledge.

Haws, J. B. (2013). The Mormon image in the American mind: Fifty years of public perception.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Heath, R. T. (2001). Identification. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. (pp. 335-337). Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

139

Heidemann, E. (2011). New voters in American elections: Participation, partisan mobilization,

and the future of representative democracy. (Doctoral Dissertation). Ohio State

University, Columbus, Ohio.

Henry, C. P., Allen, R. L., & Chrisman, R. (2011). The Obama phenomenon: Toward a

multiracial democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Holan, A. (2010, August 26). Why do so many people think Obama is a Muslim? PolitiFact.

Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/26/why-do-so-

many-people-think-obama-muslim/

Holder, R. W., & Josephson, P. B. (2012). Obama, Romney, and Christian realism. Society,

49(5), 439-443.

Howerton, J. (2012, August 30). Mitt Romney at RNC: “President Obama Promised to Slow the

Rise of the Oceans…My Promise Is to Help You and Your Family.” [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/30/mitt-romney-at-rnc-

president-obama-has-promised-to-slow-the-rise-of-the-oceans-my-promise-is-to-help-

you-and-your-family/

Hu, C. (2013). A preliminary to rhetorical democracy. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/3210076/A_Preliminary_to_Rhetorical_Democracy

Ifill, G. (2009). The breakthrough: Politics and race in the age of Obama. New York, NY:

Doubleday.

Johnson, J., & Morrissey, S. (2012). Obama, Romney: Round 1. Chemical & Engineering News,

90(41), 10.

Johnson, K. (2012). Audience use of new media technologies on. Journal of Radio & Audio

Media, 19(1), 17.

Jones, J. (2012, February 29). Economy Is Paramount Issue to U.S. Voters. Gallup. Retrieved

from http://www.gallup.com/poll/153029/economy-paramount-issue-voters.aspx

140

Jordan, J., Olson, K., Goldzwig, S. (2003). Continuing the conversation on "what

constitutes publishable rhetorical criticism?": A response. Communication

Studies, 54(3), 392.

Judis, J. B. (2013, October 10). The last days of the GOP. New Republic. Retrieved from

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115134/gop-death-watch-final-days-republican-

party

Kantor, J. (2012, May 19). Romney’s faith, silent but deep. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-

romney.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Kaufmann, K. M., Petrocik, J. R., Shaw, D. R. (2008). Unconventional wisdom: Facts and myths

about American voters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, S. (2012). Obama vs. Romney. Teaching Music, 20(2), 19.

Kennon, J. (2011, October 9). The New Elite: A Look in the top 1% of wealth in the United

States. Thoughts on Business, Politics & Life from a Private Investor. Retrieved from

http://www.joshuakennon.com/the-new-elite-a-look-in-the-top-1-percent-of-wealth-in-

the-united-states/

Kiley, J., & Dimock, M. (2014, September 25). The GOP’s Millennial problem runs deep. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-

gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

Kinder, D. R., & Dale-Riddle, A.(2012). The end of race?: Obama, 2008, and racial politics in

America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kirk, J. W. (2013). Ideology and argument: Mitt Romney and the GOP in the 2012 election.

Lawrence, KS:UMI Dissertation Publishing.

141

Klein, P. (2012, September 3). Gallup polling suggests RNC did nothing for Romney.

Washington Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gallup-

polling-suggests-rnc-did-nothing-for-romney/article/2506735

Kloppenberg, J. T. (2011). Reading Obama: Dreams, hope, and the American political tradition.

Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Knoll, B. (2013, October 18). Did anti-Mormonism cost Mitt Romney the 2012 election?

Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-knoll/mitt-

romney-mormon_b_4121217.html

Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives

became republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press.

Listitude. (2012, September 1). Mitt Romney speech at RNC—full and uncut—convention.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxZkNco8mms

Lodge, M., Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Long, H. (2013, May 17). This is not the President Obama we voted for. The Guardian.

Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/17/president-

obama-scandals-disappoint-supporters

Longaker, M. G., & Walker, J. (2011). Rhetorical analysis: A brief guide for writers. Boston,

MA: Longman.

MacLean, A. (2012, September 5). Ann Romney, do you really love us women? Huffington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-maclean/ann-romney-

women_b_1859551.html

142

Martin, J. (2014). Politics and rhetoric: A critical introduction. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon,

United Kingdom: Routledge.

McKerrow, R. E. (2012). Principles of rhetorical democracy. Rétor, 2(1), 94-113. Retrieved from

http://www.revistaretor.org/pdf/retor0201_mckerrow.pdf

Medhurst, M. (2009). Mitt Romney. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 12(2), 195-221.

Medina, R.Z., Sicilia, C. B., & Martínez, H. M. (2014). La retórica emocional de la esposa del

candidato: Análisis lingüístico de los discursos de Michelle Obama y Ann

Romney/Emotional rhetoric of candidate's wife: Linguistic analysis of the speeches of

Michelle Obama and Ann Romney. Estudios Sobre El Mensaje Periodistico, 20(1), 585.

Mendell, D. (2007). Obama: From promise to power. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Mezrahi, S. (2012, July 20). Relatable Romney: A meme for rich people to relate to. Buzzfeed.

Retrieved from http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/relatable-romney-a-meme-for-rich-

people-to-relate

Mieder, W. (2009). Yes we can: Barack Obama's proverbial rhetoric. New York, NY: Peter

Lang.

Miller, J. (2013). Visual framing and social networking: A content analysis of the 2012 Barack

Obama and Mitt Romney Facebook pages. (Master’s Thesis). University of Alabama,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama..

Miller, W. E., & Shanks, J. M. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard

University Press.

Mitt Romney. (2014). Biography.com. Retrieved November 17, 2015 from

http://www.biography.com/people/mitt-romney-241055

143

Montopoli, B. (2012, April 19). Romney: I won't apologize for my dad's wealth. CBS

News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-i-wont-apologize-

for-my-dads-wealth/

Moore, L. (2012, August 20). Rep. Todd Akin: The statement and the reaction. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-

todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html?_r=1

Morley, D. (1993). Active audience theory: Pendulums and pitfalls. Journal of Communication,

43(4), 13-19.

Murkowski, A. J. (2013). A framing analysis of political cartoons on Mitt Romney's 2012

presidential run.

National Public Radio (2011, August 24).The oft-misunderstood faith of modern Mormons.

National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139918754/the-

oft-misunderstood-faith-of-modern-mormons

National Public Radio. (2012, September 4). Transcript: Michelle Obama's convention speech.

National Public Radio. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160578836/transcript-michelle-obamas-convention-

speech

The New York Times (2012a). The campaign against women. The New York Times Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-attack-on-women-is-

real.html?_r=1&module=arrowsnav&contentcollection=opinion&action=keypress®ion=f

ixedleft&pgtype=article, 2012

The New York Times. (2012b). President exit polls. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

Norvold, R. O. (1970). Rhetoric as ritual: Hubert H. Humphrey's acceptance address at the 1968

Democratic National Convention. Today's Speech, 18(1), 34-38.

144

Occupy Wall Street Official Website (2015) About us. Retrieved from

http://occupywallst.org/about/

O'Connor, P. (2013, December 5). More cracks in Obama's base. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved

from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304096104579240391951697278

Parker, S. (2011, June 6). Why 2012 looks like 1860. Retrieved from

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/06/06/why_2012_looks_like_1860/page/

full

Pedersen, C. (2009). Obama's America. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Pew Research Center. (2012a).Trends in Party Identification of Religious Groups. Retrieved

from http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-

groups/

Pew Research Center. (2012b). Partisan Polarization surges in Bush, Obama years: Trends in

American values: 1987-2012. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-

press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/

Pew Research Center. (2012c). The media, religion and the 2012 campaign for president.

Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2012/12/14/media-religion-and-2012-

campaign-president/

Pew Research Center. (2014a). Political polarization in the American public. Retrieved from

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Pew Research Center. (2014b). How Americans feel about religious groups. Pew Research.

Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-

religious-groups/

Pew Research Center. (2015a). Party identification trends, 1992-2004. (2015, April 7). Retrieved

from http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-2014/

145

Pew Research Centre. (2015b). Religious Landscape Study. Retrieved from

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Plouffe, D. (2009). The audacity to win: The inside story and lessons of Barack Obama's historic

victory. New York, NY: Viking.

Politico. (2012, November 29). 2012 Presidential election. Politico. Retrieved from

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/President/2012/

Price, J. F. (2008). Barack Obama: A biography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Reinhard, B. (2011, February 3). Bringing Obama's 2008 voters back in 2012. National Journal.

Retrieved from Gale Academic OneFile database.

Reinhard, C. (2007). Three approaches to media reception and audience reception studies.

Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/1464818/Three_approaches_to_media_reception_and_audienc

e_reception_studies?login=&email_was_taken=true

Republican National Convention. (2012, August 28). Ann Romney.[Video file]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBA7rPKhGtQ

Rowland, R. & Jones, J. (2007). Recasting the American dream and American politics: Barack

Obama's keynote address to the 2004 democratic national convention. Quarterly Journal

of Speech, 93(4), 425-448.

Rowland, R. C., & Jones, J. M. (2011). One dream: Barack Obama, race, and the American

dream. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(1), 125-154.

Saad, L. (2011, February 16). Nameless republican ties Obama in 2012 election preferences:

Young voters less supportive of his re-election than of his election in 2008. Gallup.

Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/146138/nameless-republican-ties-obama-

2012-election-preferences.aspx

146

Saad, L. (2013). TV is America's main source of news. Gallup. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news.aspx

Sargent, G. (2013, April 16). How out of touch is today's GOP. The Washington Post. Retrieved

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/16/how-out-of-touch-

is-todays-gop/

Selby, G. (2013). “Where Mitt Romney takes his family to church”: Mike Huckabee's GOP

convention speech, the “Mormon hurdle,” and the rhetoric of proportion. Rhetoric &

Public Affairs, 16(2), 385-400.

Sepulvado, J. (2012, January 26). Conservative north Florida voters: Romney's too rich. CNN.

Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/politics/north-florida-conservatives/

Shannon, P. (2015, April 1). Top 10 Reasons Millennials Are More Liberal Than Their Parents.

Liberal America. Retrieved from http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/04/01/top-10-

reasons-millennials-are-more-liberal-than-their-parents/

Shapiro, R. (2012, September 4). Michelle Obama media reactions: Pundits swoon over first

lady's DNC speech. Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/michelle-obama-media-reactions-dnc-

speech_n_1856453.html

Sheckels, T. (2014). The rhetoric of a campaigning first Lady. In Denton, R. Studies of

Communication in the 2012 Presidential Campaign. (pp. 71-94). London, UK: Lexington

Books.

Sheets, P., Domke, D. S., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). God and country: The partisan psychology

of the presidency, religion, and nation. Political Psychology, 32(3), 459-484.

Sheppard, N. (2012, April 17). MSNBC's Martin Bashir calls Ann Romney “fake” and “two-

faced.” [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-

sheppard/2012/04/17/msnbcs-martin-bashir-calls-ann-romney-fake-and-two-faced

147

Shwarz, H. (2015, March 9). Fox News is the most trusted national news channel. And it’s not

that close. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-

trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/

Siker, J. S. (2012). President Obama, The Bible, and political rhetoric. Political Theology, 13(5),

586-609.

Skidmore, M. J. (2010). Of Barack Obama's the audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the

American dream. Poverty & Public Policy, 2(8).

Skinner, R. M. (2012). Barack Obama and the partisan presidency: Four more years? Society,

49(5), 423-429.

Smith, D. T. (2014). The Mormon dilemma: How old and new religious divides hurt Mormon

candidates in the United States. Electoral Studies, 35, 283-291.

Stanley, P. (2011, October 12). Interview: Robert Jeffress refuses to back down on “Mormonism

is a cult.” Christian Post. Retrieved from http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-

robert-jeffress-refuses-to-back-down-on-mormonism-is-a-cult-57933/

Stout, C. T., & Le, D. (2012). Living the dream: Barack Obama and blacks’ changing

perceptions of the American dream. Social Science Quarterly, 93(5), 1338-1359.

Strasser, A. (2012, April 27). Romney’s advice to students: Borrow money from your parents.

Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/04/27/473096/romney-borrow-

money-parents/

Sullivan, A. (2013, April 25). The American dream, downsized. National Journal. Retrieved

from

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=ucalgary&id=GAL

E|A327737239&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&userGroup=ucalgary&authCount=1

148

Thomas, E. (2009). A long time coming: The inspiring, combative 2008 campaign and the

historic election of Barack Obama. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Thomson-DeVeaux, A. (2011, December 8). Obama and Romney Spar Over the

American Dream. Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved from

http://publicreligion.org/2011/12/obama-and-romney-spar-over-the-american-

dream/#.VhMhlyvw8RR

Tindale, C. (2007). Textual allusion as rhetorical argumentation: Georgias, Plato, and Isocrates.

Retrieved from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/people/ctindale/system/files/Textual-allusion-

revised.pdf

Todd, C., Gawiser, S. R., Arumi, A. M., & Witt, G. E. (2009). How Barack Obama won: A state-

by-state guide to the historic 2008 presidential election. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Trosky, R. J., Jr. (2013). Visual situations: A social semiotic analysis of the 2012 Youtube

channels of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. (Master’s Thesis). Robert Morris

University, Moon, PA.

Walton, H., Allen, J. A. V., Puckett, S. C., & Deskins, D. R. (2008). The red and blue state

divide in black and white: The historic 2008 election of president Barack Obama. The

Black Scholar, 38(4), 19-30.

The Week Staff. (2012, February 3). Is Romney 'too perfect' to be president? The Week.

Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/478396/romney-perfect-president

Welsh, T. (2012, June 4). Is Mitt Romney too rich to be president? U.S. News & World Report.

Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/04/is-mitt-romney-too-

rich-to-be-president

Wilson, M. J. W. (2015). The rhetoric of fear and partisan entrenchment. Law and Psychology

Review, 39, 117.

149

Wilson, P. (1996). The rhythm of rhetoric: Jesse Jackson at the 1988 democratic national

convention. Southern Communication Journal, 61(3), 253-264.

Wlezien, C. (2013). Public opinion and the presidential election. American Election of 2012,

172-189.

Woodward, G. C. (2003). The idea of identification. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Yandoli, K. (2013, December 11). I’m a millennial, and I’m disappointed in Obama. [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/177557/im-millennial-and-im-

disappointed-obama#

Young, L. M. (2003). Creating community through symbolic discourse: An analysis of Jesse

Jackson's rhetoric at the democratic national conventions, 1984-2000. University of

Nevada, LV: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Young, M. (2008). Thoughts on Malcolm Sillars' "persistent problems in rhetorical

criticism": Problems or opportunities in rhetorical criticism? Southern

Communication Journal, 73(4), 347.

Zappen, J. P. (2009). Kenneth burke on dialectical-rhetorical transcendence. Philosophy &

Rhetoric, 42(3), 279-301.

Zdenek, S. (2009). Charting a course between methodological formalism and eclecticism:

Pedagogical tensions in three rhetorical analysis textbooks. Review of

Communication, 9(2), 188-211.

150