Rhetorical Analysis Of Bernie Sanders Speech

In his speech at Georgetown University, Bernie Sanders elucidated democratic socialism and painted his vision of a reformed America— an America that is economically equal; healthy; employed; educated; and, unified with Muslim nations against ISIS. Sanders' speech highlighted pervasive social programs that accentuated the dire need of middle class Americans for economic security and equality. Sanders correlated his desire to redistribute wealth among the top 1 percent—the ruling class—and the middle class to the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr claiming "true freedom does not occur without economic security" (Bernie Sanders). From Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights to free public university tuition to raising minimum wage, this speech strongly encapsulated American history and tradition. Even though his reformative agenda encompasses modern day issues that are presently troubling Americans, Sanders may be viewed as overzealous or "pushy," considering his label as a 'socialist'. This speech confirms that most, if not all, arguments can contain both logical and
emotional premises. In this argument, I was able to recognize both emotional appeal and logical premises.
Sanders reformative agenda includes: Medicare for all, free public college tuition, more work and educational opportunities, raising minimum wage, combating climate change, raising taxes for the rich, and publicly funding elections. To implement these reforms, democratic socialism will act as a catalyst in an effort to "create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy" (Bernie Sanders). Sanders also addressed the failure of the younger generation to exercise their right, and ability, to vote:
Democratic socialism, to me, does not just mean that we must create a nation of economic and social justice. It also means that we must create a vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person one vote. It is extremely sad that the United States, one of the oldest democracies on earth, has one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country, and that millions of young and working class people have given up on our political system entirely. Every American should be embarrassed that in our last national election 63% of the American people, and 80% of young people, did not vote. Clearly, despite the efforts of many Republican governors to suppress the vote, we must make it easier for people to participate in the political process, not harder. (Bernie Sanders)
These logical premises were sound because Sanders acknowledged relevant issues that concern us, not foreign countries— which, in my opinion, made him seem more relatable, personable, and concerned for my welfare and future as a middle class college student. After reading this speech, I immediately felt an appeal to my desire for purpose and belonging. Sanders sought to empower his audience: "I’m not running for president because it’s my turn, but because it’s the turn of all of us to live in a nation of hope and opportunity not for some, not for the few, but for all" (Bernie Sanders). In his speech, Sanders used the informal fallacy, argumentum ad populum, to support his deductive argument. This fallacy is the product of our shared emotions (xvii). Bernie Sanders appealed to the emotions of his audience in an effort to get them to unconsciously invest in his vision of a reformed America. He even appealed to our love and consideration for our mothers: "How can it possibly be that the United States, today, is virtually the only nation on earth, large or small, which does not guarantee that a working class woman can stay home for a reasonable period of time with her new-born baby? How absurd is that?" (Bernie Sanders) This personally resonated with me because my aunt is currently pregnant...how could my own country be so inconsiderate?
Last summer, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president as a member of the Republican Party. In his remarks, Trump explained, in colloquial terms, how he would "make America great again." Overflowing with insults, Trump's address started with critique: "Our country is in serious trouble. We don't have victories anymore....they beat us all the time" (Donald Trump). He ended his press release saying, "Quite simply, it is time to bring real leadership to Washington. The fact is, the American Dream is dead—but if I win, I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before. Together we will make America great again!" Although Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican Party, Donald Trump, himself, and his remarks has apparent strengths and weaknesses. Evidently, Trump's dominant strength is his business experience and accomplishments, which he openly referenced on multiple occasions in his speech. Another strength is that Donald Trump is outspoken and frank, however, this can be—and has been—taken offensively and seen as rhapsodic, egotistical, and publicity-seeking. In this address, emotion was recognized far more than logic and reason.
Donald Trump referenced the United States as a "dumping ground for everybody else's problems." Throughout his speech, he briefly tackled various issues, such as ISIS, that previous quarter's GDP report of below zero, high unemployment rates, Obamacare, and our weak military. He managed to circulate each argument back to himself:
They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel. When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest. They don't have to pay interest, because they took the oil that, when we left Iraq, I said we should've taken... (Donald Trump) And remember the $5 billion Website? $5 billion we spent on a Website, and to this day it doesn't work. A $5 billion Website. I have so many Websites, I have them all over the place. I hire people, they do a Website. It costs me $3. $5 billion Website...
Trump's inductive argument, and insults especially, were not logically and reasonably sound, however, his remarks did embody persuasion and emotion.
In my opinion, what makes Donald Trump persuasive to some is that he does not try to connect with the electorate as a politician. His impulsive, brash personality is so authentic that it catches us by surprise. Normally, politicians try to prove that they are different from the rest. Donald Trump is a living example of it without even attempting to prove it: he completely goes against the grain of what society thinks a politician should be. In his remarks, and during debates in general, Trump uses the informal fallacy, argumentum ad hominem to support his inductive arguments. This fallacy is directed "to the man"and can be used to attack the circumstances or character of the speaker (xvi). Trump uses ad hominem when he insults
Mexicans:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. (Donald Trump)
A perfect, sound argument possesses a balance between logic and emotion. As humans, we are cajoled by reason but swayed by emotion. Bernie Sanders' argument is the more logically and reasonably informative argument. Donald Trump's argument is more persuasive and employs emotion more than Bernie Sanders. In my opinion, declaring the stronger argument depends on the individual. Being that we are more influenced by emotion, Donald Trump's argument may appear stronger in the short-term because we are drawn in by his unexpected candor. Personally, I believe that logic establishes a foundation for emotion. Once emotion has passed, if you do not have a foundation to rely on, the argument and purpose of the emotional appeal will be invalid. Personally, Bernie Sanders has the stronger, more sound argument.