Rhetorical Analysis Of A More Perfect Union

The speech “A More Perfect Union” given by Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign rallied a great deal of support towards his election. In this essay I will analyze the effect his tone and style had on his audience, as well as give my personal reaction to the speech.

On March 18 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama addressed a growing controversy surrounding the racial views expressed by his former pastor Reverend Wright. Beyond simply expressing disapproval towards these opinions, Obama used the topic as a spring board, to discuss the greater issue of racial tension throughout America. Playing off of the opening line of the constitution, Obama calls for “a more perfect union”, a union where racism is finally exterminated from

American culture. He encourages this change by confronting the prejudices existing in both Black and White Americans, and the necessary steps each will have to take in order to move towards his proposed union. At the time this speech was given, many Americans were looking for a change. Due to this the speech was well received, inspiring motivation towards his described union, and consequently gathering support for his election.
Obama takes on a sincere tone in this piece; this is evident through his emotional transparency.

For example he shares an emotional anecdote about his grandmother making racist comments: “A women who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a women who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe” (pg. 4). Along with this his notable humility also reveals a sincere tone: “I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own” (pg. 6). Traditionally politicians rarely adopt such an open and sincere tone. Choosing to adopt this tone proved beneficial, as it allowed him to connect with his audience on a deeper level, ultimately giving his views greater

impact.
For the most part Obama’s style is formal, but not excessive. He stays on topic throughout the speech and avoids comical remarks. However, the best evidence of his formal style is his diction: “We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as a spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news”(pg. 7). In this excerpt, phrases such as: “breeds division”, “in the wake of tragedy”, and “fodder for the nightly news” are examples of formal language that wouldn’t typically appear in an informal setting. The formal style implemented in this speech fits his purpose well, had he adopted an informal or colloquial style, his audience wouldn’t have taken him seriously.
Although I found his speech inspiring, it lacked substance.

In the moment, this speech has power, almost every American can relate to something he says, and agrees that change should happen. Yet, after it’s over, the drive fades, and you realize the impracticality of such an endeavor. He promises too much, Americans idolize the president, but don’t realize how little power is actually granted to the position. Examining the peace purely as an objective instrument to his purpose, he did well, he won over America by promoting unreasonable change, so that he could win the election. It’s just too bad that change didn’t

happen.
In conclusion, President Barack Obama’s used style and tone effectively in his speech. His sincere tone connected him with his audience on a personal level. His formal style gave his word’s power and let his audience know he took America’s problems seriously. The cohesion of the two, along with his sympathetic analysis of the issues and affirmation of America’s efficacy, produce the inspirational “change we can believe in”.