Rhetorical Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Speech

When examined using a Blackean and Aristotelian framing, the campaign announcement speech of Hillary Clinton reveals significant ideological undertones and persuasive discursive strategies which figure the audience to be “American”. Hillary Clinton clearly reveals her ideology in her speech as she puts her political beliefs on display for the audience to see while simultaneously instilling and reinforcing already existing ideological blinders held by the audience as she makes use of persuasive definitions in regards to what it means to be American and who is American. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton utilizes Aristotelian persuasive strategies to persuade the audience such as ethos and pathos.

Before engaging in an analysis of the speech itself,

it is necessary that one look at the context of the speech and its subsequent performance. Looking at this preliminary background information shines light on the motives and intentions of the speaker who, in this case, is Hillary Clinton. The speech takes place in New York “right across the water from the headquarters of the United Nations, where [Hillary Clinton] represented our country many times.” The park in which she is speaking is dedicated to the hero of Democrats, former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New York already is a liberal safe haven and goes Democrat in every election so most who are going to be in attendance of this speech are already going to be voting Democrat in the general election and are simply looking for who to vote for. Hillary Clinton takes advantage of her previous service as one of New York’s senators when she chose to announce her candidacy for the general election next year. Those in the audience are looking for a reaffirmation of their already existing ideologies and how Clinton can fit that need, many of whom have previously voted for her. Lastly, the park, although it may be obvious, has “absolutely no ceilings.” Clinton uses this location of her speech to set the stage for her ideology-laced address to the audience.
The ideology presented in Hillary Clinton’s speech can be directly traced back to this specific use of location for her announcement: the specter of Franklin Roosevelt and the lack of a ceiling.

As previously stated, Franklin Roosevelt was and is the grandfather of the Democratic Party. In fact, one may say that Franklin Roosevelt is to Democrats as Ronald Reagan is to Republicans. Not only is Roosevelt idolized in Democratic history for his overall presidency and leadership of this country, but also for championing civil liberties and workers’ rights. Given this information and the fact that Hillary Clinton herself bases her own campaign on those issues as well, it is clear why she chose to host her announcement for candidacy in the 2016 presidential election in a place that is dedicated to someone who paved the way for her to be where she is now. Why host it outdoors though? The answer is simple; there is “absolutely no ceiling.” Hillary Clinton here alludes to the “glass ceiling” or the latent, steadfast barrier that has kept women from advancing up the corporate ladder despite having all the qualifications need to advance to a high position. The utilization of location is done in such a way that Hillary Clinton does and references in her speech lays the ideological foundation that Hillary Clinton builds the rest of her speech upon with the goal being that the audience will desire to become part of this

movement.
Apart from the mere location of the speech and its ideological use, a Blackean analysis of this speech reveals another level to this speech and that is the formation of a false consciousness and the “I”- “it” otherization that occurs. Constantly throughout the speech Hillary speaks directly or indirectly towards the Republicans who in this case are the other. She accuses them of being out of touch with the times, singing “a song called ‘Yesterday’.” She accuse Republicans of going against Americans and favoring Big Business. She accuses Republicans of carrying out policies discriminatory towards women, minorities, and the LGBT community. She refers to them as “these Republicans.” Her rhetoric in these parts of the speech contains an otherizing factor that seeks to stir up feelings of vitriol in the Democratic audience towards anyone who associates themselves with the political beliefs held by the Republican Party. One spokesperson for the Republican National Committee was even quoted saying “Hillary Clinton's rhetoric is misleading and divisive" (Halper 7). In a later speech, she goes as far as to compare GOP policies on women’s health to that of “terrorist groups” (Hemmer). Hillary Clinton’s divisive rhetoric is no accident but rather a deliberate choice.
Immediately following the criticism of the Republican Party, Hillary Clinton elaborates on her fundamental beliefs which, due to the vagary that they possess, presents her beliefs as being more aligned with the American ideal. In fact, she states that she has “a different vision for America.” The creation of the “I” – “it” dichotomy that Hillary Clinton brings about puts up ideological blinders and prejudices the audience. She calls Republican stances extreme but, “To call a viewpoint "extreme" is a convenient way of dismissing it out of hand without ever dealing with its substance” (Wax). She wants the audience to follow, see, and desire her vision for America while simultaneously tearing down any resemblance of the vision that someone aligned with more conservative ideas may hold.
Hillary Clinton compliments the ideological premise of her speech with persuasive rhetoric strategies that Aristotle lays out in On Rhetoric, primarily ethos, pathos, and logos. Hillary Clinton first makes use of ethos in her speech before diving into any ideological topic and makes this a trend in the rest of her speech where she will first use ethos before engaging in a topic. Ethos is persuasion through character used “in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence” (Aristotle 38). In the beginning specifically, she reminds the audience of her previous political experience and qualifications she believes she has for being president. Later on, after she presents her vision for America, before she engages in the specifics of what policy actions that vision would entail, she establishes credibility with her audience. She relies on ethos as a point on which she can continuously come back to in her speech so that the audience remembers why they should trust her vision and her leadership to carry out that vision. She spends a large amount of time putting her life’s work on display for the audience in order to make her seem relatable and someone they trust with running the country. She declares “I want to be her champion and your champion. If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you.” She establishes in the audience a sense of trust and reliability.
While Hillary Clinton uses ethos and pathos, the general audience is not there to learn why she is necessarily the best candidate or why the Democratic Party is preferable but rather to be motivated to go out and spread the word for Hillary Clinton and thus get her the support needed to win the election. To do this, Hillary Clinton used the last of the three rhetorical strategies Aristotle describes and that is pathos. Pathos is persuasion when the listeners are “led to feel emotion” (Aristotle 38). Hillary Clinton fills her speech with emotional appeal. As stated earlier when discussing the Blackean analysis on the ideology in the speech, Hillary Clinton throws fuel on the fire when she harshly criticizes the republicans and creates the “I” – “it” dichotomy. Anger and hate are powerful emotions which she stokes in the audiences heart towards the Republican candidates while using more positive emotions like empathy when she characterizes herself. The use of pathos only strengthens that dichotomy that Hillary creates in her speech.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign speech, when examined under a Blackean and Aristotelian lens, reveals certain ideological underpinnings, dichotomies, and rhetorical strategies in which she manipulates the audience’s thoughts and feelings while figuring them as true “Americans” following the Democratic guidelines. The use of these ideologies and strategies such as ethos and pathos in a vacuum are masterfully used for their purpose to get her elected, however, when applying a moral lens to the speech one cannot help but conclude that the speech in and of itself is amoral if not immoral. Creating ideological blinders and a deep sense of hatred and resentment in citizens only furthers creation of an other that is inherently lesser and therefore allowed to be treated immorally. These types of speeches are the cause of the bitter division found in America today resulting in political gridlock. The only cure lies in a moral application of rhetoric.