Rhetorical Analysis Of President Obama's Inaugural Address

On January 20th 2009, Obama gave his Inaugural Address in Washington D.C. The speech was given significant interest worldwide. When Obama delivered the Inaugural Address his intention was to persuade the public of his beliefs. He addressed a huge audience, which consisted of the American people as well as shareholders nationally and internationally. In order for him to successfully communicate with the public, both rational and emotional appeal had to be incorporated into the speech.
“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are
many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Obama is a man who represents hope and change for our nation during these hard times. On January 20th, 2009, a new era began for our country. This paper will examine many of the rhetorical

traditions present in President Obama’s 2009 and 2013 inaugural addresses. As a result of this analysis, this paper will argue that President Obama’s presidential rhetoric in his inaugural addresses differs from
past presidents in that his rhetoric is more secular based and more inclusive of immigrants and minorities.

president Obama appealed to pathos and ethos to inform, touch and build trust with American citizens. First, Obama identified with the struggle, deficit, and poverty that the country was experiencing. This helped him relate to the emotions of Americans and effectively manipulate pathos. He spoke a lot about crisis and despair and stated, “Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered.” With this, he attempted to bring people together through their shared suffering. By forming a sense of unity, people will come together, as a force, to tackle the problem at hand. In this effort for change, he left no room for hesitation because, “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” He emphasized the word “today” to make people realize that there will be an immediate change. Though these reforms won’t happen overnight, he enforces that people should take ownership and start working without delay so change can happen as soon as possible. In order to persuade the largest audience, he spoke of devastation and the necessity of moving forward from those struggles. However, his kind words would have been meaningless and questionable if he did not appeal to ethos.
Obama used ethos efficiently when he displayed his plans for the future and took responsibility for the upcoming economic reformation.

He said, “And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” Essentially, Obama wanted America to know that financial plans would no longer be kept hidden from the public and in turn, build the bridge of trust between him and the country. Informing the public assists his credibility because they can trust a man that doesn’t keep secrets. People were excited to break the color barrier on presidency, so his ethnic background helped his campaign. He was the underdog in the election and people supported him because he had a good reputation. His appeal to ethos is enhanced by his usage of rhetorical devices. President Obama has a drastically different perspective on racism in America

compared
to past presidents which seems to greatly distinguish his rhetoric on this issue. This is particularly exemplified in a moving statement that he makes later in his first inaugural address.
He refers to “the price and promise of citizenship” and the American ideals that embody it as the reason why Americans of every race and faith can come together to celebrate at this joyous occasion (Obama, 2009). He also states that “the price and promise of citizenship” is the reason why “a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant” can now stand before America and take the oath of office as President of the United States of
America (Obama, 2009). Past presidential rhetoric analyzed by Beasley (2004) looked at the race issue from an outsider’s perspective and in comparison they barely scratched the surface.

This analysis has shown that President Barack Obama has a rhetorical style that is quite different from his predecessors. In terms of the tradition of uniting the nation under a shared civil religion, Obama divides his rhetoric. He does still use sacred rhetoric. He does this usually through the rhetorical tradition of referring to America as God’s chosen people and emphasizing America’s divine destiny and the responsibilities associated with this. He emphasizes America’s shared ideals more than their shared religion. He seems to believe that the principles laid out by America’s founding fathers are more binding. By focusing more on shared ideals rather than a shared religion he becomes more inclusive by including those outside of the American civil religion. This exemplifies a broader definition of American national identity. On the topic of immigration in America, President Obama’s rhetoric is for the most part quite dissimilar to past presidents. Beasley (2004) has asserted that presidential rhetoric on immigration has changed over the years, but has still mostly been exclusive rather than inclusive when referring to immigrants. Obama contradicts this in both of his inaugural addresses. A characterizing feature of his rhetoric when referring to immigrants has been to place them next to
those who have fought for America. This portrays that they are both equal and are both important assets to America. Obama does slightly fall into the trap of past exclusive presidential rhetoric in his 2013 when he emulates Lyndon B. Johnson’s rhetoric on judging immigrants based on what they can do for America. However, for the most part Obama’s rhetoric contradicts the characterizations made by Beasley (2004). This exemplifies that he is much more inclusive of Rhetorical Analysis of President Obama 19 immigrants, and as stated before portrays them in a much more positive light. He characterizes immigrants as those who helped to build America in a positive way.