Patrick Buchanan undeniably pledges his wholehearted Republican Party support for Presidential candidate George Bush through his sarcastic, declarative tone critical of the opposing Clinton administration, by utilizing powerful repetition, and through asking persuasive rhetorical questions. According to the biography on the official Patrick Buchanan webbing, he is regarded as an exceptionally influential speaker. Buchanan skill comes from his combination of sensationalistic examples with detailed historical support to assert his message.
As we discussed in section, it is also important to appreciate that convention agenda deters strategically save Buchanan as the highlighted, penultimate speaker on the first day of the long Republican National Convention (followed only by the President). Since people most often recall the last words they hear, Buchanan recognizes he must make his message potent and memorable. Buchanan had earned great credibility well before the convention. When he previously campaigned for President in the 1992 primary against George Bush, he received the support of three million Republicans.
He was thus very well known and highly respected. Consequently, since the audience regarded Buchanan as a trusted authority, he used his favorable petition to his advantage. Any effective analysis of his speech must consider the demographic make-up of the audience who Buchanan addresses. He speaks to devoted Republicans at the Republican National Convention. Thus, this crowd overwhelmingly supports George Bush. Therefore, his mission is to simply solidify the Republican spirit and garner unanimous support for Bush.
By reminding Republicans of their common political values, Buchanan uses this speech as an opportunity to illustrate that George Bush is not only the best candidate, but is the only logical choice for President of the United States. Buchanan speech uses many close textual analysis tools. From a cursory reading of the speech, Buchanan sarcastic, declarative tone is unmistakably obvious. Citing various patent Clinton character flaws, Buchanan convinces the audience to believe that Bill Clinton, Bush’s opponent, is completely incapable of serving as President.
Buchanan employs quotes coming directly from Clinton and twists them to sound thoughtless with his own manipulative critical language. For example, Buchanan quotes Clinton and ridicules, “Elect me, and you get two for the price of one,’ Mr… Clinton says of his responses. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that earldoms should have the right to sue their parent’s,” (Buchanan 3). By using this cynical tone, Buchanan convinces the audience that information from Clinton that appears to be positive Is actually glaringly negative. Buchanan Is clearly prepared Tort ten speech.
He invests substantial pre-convention time to unearth disparaging material about the Clinton family that is detrimental to their competing campaign. He uses this scathing information to motivate his audience to not only like George Bush, but more notably, o dislike Bill Clinton. According to the analytical New York Times article by Garry Willis, “Patrick Buchanan said that his ‘culture war’ aimed at the Clinton is more important than the cold war aimed at Russia. They have an enemy clearly in view, and it is their own Government. ” Along with attacking Hillary Clinton with sarcasm, Buchanan similarly attacks Bill Clinton.
Specifically, Buchanan Juxtaposes George Bush, who at 17 years old selflessly leaves his high school graduation to courageously enlist in the US war troops in the Vietnam War, with the cowardly Bill Clinton about homo he says “And Mr… Clinton? And Bill Clinton? I’ll tell you where he was. I’ll tell you where he was. When Bill Silicon’s time came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory room in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft,” (Buchanan 3). Buchanan shrewdly paints Clinton to be a selfish coward who puts his personal interests ahead of the good of America.
Buchanan passion for this topic is evident as his tone becomes increasingly more serious throughout this speech. Along with a sarcastic tone, Buchanan demonstrates a declarative tone as he suggests that clearly fined philosophical boundaries separate the two Presidential candidates with the Clinton being on one side (the wrong one) and the Bushes are on “our” side. He implores, “Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans,” (Buchanan 4). At this energetic apex in the speech, Buchanan demands universal support for George Bush.
He appeals to the audiences’ desire to be a part of this unified conservative community and insists that George Bush is necessary for our great entry to prevail in the divisive war of cultures. According to Gary Nash in the book History on Trial, Buchanan speaks at the Republican National Convention not only in support of winning the culture war, but also triumphing in the “a war for the soul of America. ” Along with a strong tone, Buchanan uses repetition to propel the persuasiveness of his speech. Repetition can be extremely powerful when used correctly, and Buchanan executes it to near perfection in this address.
For instance, he uses repetition to promote the acceptance of the idea that all Republicans must tank harmoniously with Bush to promote the ideals best suited for our country. To do so, Buchanan asserts, “We stand with him for the freedom to choose religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. We stand with President for rightful and for voluntary prayer in the public schools. And we stand against putting our wives and daughters and sisters into combat units of the United States Army.
We also stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns ND communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that so terribly pollutes our popular culture. We stand with President Bush in favor of federal Judges who interpret the law as written,” (Buchanan 4). By hammering away with this sort of compelling repetition, Buchanan pounds his message deep into the minds of his audience. He is emphatic to the Houston crowd that Republicans, as loyal Americans, must stand aside George Bush. Also, his repetition of the phrase “we stand” makes Nils speech somewhat poetic.
Slice Bushman’s speech essentially concludes ten invention, he flavors his speech with repetitive rhythm phrases to make it more memorable. Another tactic Buchanan implements is asking the audience rhetorical questions. After addressing an issue about Bill Clinton, Buchanan strategically asks the audience a question about the matter. This forces the audience to feel like they are coming to the conclusion about who is the superior candidate on their own. For example, after explaining how Bill Clinton hid from the Vietnam War, Buchanan asks, “Which of the two men has won the moral authority to send young men to battle? (Buchanan 3). The audience undoubtedly comes to the conclusion that Bush is the better, more respectable man for the Job. By forcing the audience to come up with the answer on their own, Buchanan manipulates the audience into thinking the answer is theirs. When an audience member thinks the answer is their own, they can assume that they agree with Buchanan. Asking rhetorical questions is an exceptionally useful tactic when executed correctly like Buchanan does. In conclusion, Patrick Buchanan speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention shows that he is a well-trained, credible speaker.
He uses multiple persuasive tools effectively and convinces the large audience that their vote for George Bush is in the best interest of the United States of America. Buchanan passion and enthusiasm is evident from even a quick glance at the speech. His conviction makes the speech memorable and powerful. Although I do not agree with all of the ideas Buchanan advances, it was persuasive enough to make me think twice about some of my beliefs. Buchanan ability to substantially influence an audience could effectively recruit those uncommitted “on the fencers” to his side.