Assessment of The Union Speech by Obama in 2013

A magician gives the illusion that doves are produced from thin air but are just hidden in his sleeves waiting to be released. The deception is similar to the way Obama forms his statements in the 2013 State of the Union address. Obama is a master at denouncing his opposition to have a moral compass that is off. When Obama presents his speech he appears to favor bipartisanship, but uses contradictory statements to prove he just wants his own agenda to be passed.

Evaluation of Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address

Obama uses contradictory, unifying language throughout his speech as he addresses various issues. For example, when he says, “It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth” (Obama, 2013). Who would argue with this statement? In most minds, smarter is equivalent to better. He just displayed that the ways we can be smarter is by investing in broad-based growth. This seemingly innocent statement becomes a very biased request. Obama circumvents what he is trying to say to delude people into thinking he just wants the best for the country. He also uses inclusive language such as ‘we’ to give the listener a sense of unity. This is really effective in enacting the emotional side of the viewers since people aspire to make smart decisions. People have this innate sense of accomplishment when they make smart decisions. The reason this is actually quite tricky is that by just accepting the sentence and agreeing without a doubt, people aren’t actually being smarter, but just doing what they are told.

Gun Control and Emotional Appeal

Later on in the address, it turns to the issue of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). When Barack Obama talks about the issue, he acts as if he is just calling for a vote on the issue. “If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote” (Obama, 2013). Beginning the discussion by saying this, he is enacting the passive aggressiveness in his speech, which has been a constant subtext in the declaration. “Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun” (Obama, 2013). The placement of this is critical to make the reader agree with Obama. The basis of what he just said is anyone who would vote ‘no’, which Obama says is ‘your choice’, would cause these tragedies to continue. He uses this internal guilt to direct Congress towards his path by associating negative emotions with the alternative. He then takes a personal and relatable situation and demonstrates to the audience how important voting correctly becomes. “Hadiya’s parents… [are] in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence” (Obama, 2013). Making Congress physically face the people who have been affected by the act in question enables the personal conflict that voters might face. Newtown’s disaster is brought up to remind Congress what the current situation with the gun laws has brought to them. “Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children” (Obama, 2013). Finally, the most valid weapon Obama holds in his holster is the fact that he uses ‘our children’. When this is said, the audience subconsciously thinks of their own children. The reason being that human nature makes us imagine ourselves in the situations that are described to us.

Investment and Rhetorical Strategy

Further into the speech, Obama’s motives become transparent if just pointed out. “If we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas, smart savings, and wise investments in our future” (Obama, 2013). Who is to say that the investments that are chosen are ‘wise investments’? Of course, it is in the eye of the beholder. I might think that the selected investment was idiotic and pointless, but my antithesis would argue that we gained something. Of course, Obama is clearly aware of this fact that there are different ‘best products’. It’s as if you were to compare a gold medalist Olympic swimmer to an individual on a winning soccer team of the world cup. Both are considered best in their category, but out of the two, who would be better? Some might say the swimmer since his individual effort won him his title. And the opposition might say there is more skill in being a part of a whole; more needed talent to work with a unit. Both have solid validity behind them, yet people will choose each for their own personal reasons. Obama says there is a proper product to be chosen, not exactly stating what it is, since he just needs people to have a positive feeling about what he is going to try to achieve. Since the ‘best’ ideas is never a bad thing, he always turns out to be right, no matter what the person thinks this is.

Conclusion

A true master of deception is a politician, and Obama does this job well. Obama evokes biased implementations in his speech, making the listener want to conform to his ways. The problem is that every individual will put their own choices into the statement, but since they are being led away from the wrong, which leaves them with the Obama way. The unity he calls for is just a way to get people to feel as if he is going to do the best thing for the country. The hoax is very effective, but why can politicians like Obama just stop the mind-tricks and the games they continue to play with their audience and support citizens to think for themselves?

References

Obama, B. H. (2013). State of the Union Address. The White House. Retrieved from [URL].

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Second Amendment. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from [URL].