Rhetorical Perspectives on National Tragedy speeches

Emotional tensions are constantly high during the aftermath of tragedies such as mass
shootings and terrorist attacks. When such tragedies occur, leaders attempt to ease anger and
grief through the utilization of rhetorical speech when addressing a shocked public. Three U.S.
presidents have each responded to three different disasters in their presidency by keeping the
pathos of their audience in mind. President Bill Clinton addresses the nation after the Columbine
High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado in 1999. George W. Bush gives a speech during the
aftermath of the 2007 Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia, and Barack Obama
addresses the nation after the Aurora theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado. In order to effectively
appease their audience after such tragedies where many have been injured and killed, President
Bush, Clinton, and Obama utilized rhetorical strategies such as proofs, style, appeals, strong
language and diction in their address to the nation while also taking advantage of kairotic
moments. Although all three speeches were highly effective in controlling the publics emotions
as well as encouraging them Clinton also explicitly and briefly advocates for more respect in
schools and gun safety in his speech.
Audience:
It is because these speeches in a sense address national tragedies, the intended audience
would be Americans and more specifically, the audience that each president is addressing
directly at the site, respectively. The live audience would be survivors, students, affiliates of the
school, parents, and community members. However, it is also essential to keep in mind that each
speech was taped and aired on national television, thus, the audience is also the public at large.
Situated Ethos and Kairos

All three presidents have the advantage of using kairos and situated ethos. Obama, Bush,
and Clinton have situated ethos to their advantage because they are leaders of this country and so
people respect them and are interested in what they have to say. The speakers are credible and
successful and so people are more open to their message and in understanding the power they
yield to seemingly make things right. All three presidents also have the kairotic moment to their
advantage when they give their speeches. They gave their speech in light of recent tragedies,
respectively. When a tragedy occurs, the survivors, community members affected, and the public
as well are expecting to hear from a leader, the president or mayor for example. The moment is
urgent and many are in a panic, in grief, and/or in anger so it is an important time for the leader
of a country where this tragedy occurred to address the people and control high tensions and a
generally confused and distraught public.
Clinton explicitly, although briefly, advocates for gun safety and respect in American
schools. A future where students respect each other even if they all belong to different groups,
or come from different faiths, or races, or backgrounds A future where society guards our
children better against violent influences and weapons that can break the dam of decency and
humanity in the most vulnerable of children. (Clinton). At this point, it is essential to note the
context of the Columbine High School shooting. The shooting was committed by two students of
the school who were disrespected and continuously bullied by their peers. It is not entirely
known what has led them to carry out the attack. They were believed to have been continually
bullied in school and mentally ill. Thus, Clinton is implicitly stating that bullying and disrespect
especially in schools need to be prevented. Terms such as respect and belong give a sense of
unity and community to the audience and so it is emotionally appealing. These words may

conjure thoughts of harmony and peace which are positive aspects a community such as the one
Clinton addresses, hopes to have.
Although Clinton does not explain exactly how the audience can actively support gun
safety or how they can help prevent bullying in schools, Clinton advocates for these issues which
does give his speech a broader agenda than Bush and Obamas speeches. You can help us to
build a better future for all our children A future where students respect each other even if they
all belong to different groups, or come from different faiths, or races, or backgrounds (Clinton).
However, this may be due to the time period of the speeches. Whereas Obama and Bushs
speeches are given within a day or two after the respective tragedies, Clintons memorial speech
took place one month after the school shooting (CITE?). Thus, Americans and those who were
affected have had a month to grief extensively and calm their emotions a little before Clinton
brings up controversial issues such as gun safety and bullying. It would be ineffective and
potentially harmful if Bush and Obama incorporated into their speeches such heated and
controversial topics that were even a more immense part of American discourse when they were
in office.

However, if it was done in an emotionally appealing way, it could be effective.

Nevertheless, such catastrophes cause peoples emotions to become riled whether in grief and/or
anger and these emotions continue to stay in certain heightened levels during the aftermath of
such catastrophe.
It is because of the high tensions and emotions stirring within Americans after this
tragedy, Clinton took advantage of the kairotic moment. The shooting only occurred one month
prior to his speech but it was still recent enough to be effective so he could deliver his message
persuasively. It is because the speech is delivered at the site of the attacks and the live audience
listening includes survivors and community members, there is no issue that the tragedy was not

as recent as it was in Obama and Bushs case. This tragedy is still fresh in the minds of all who
were directly or indirectly affected. Clinton also uses the memorial address as a platform for
advocating important issues as well as appeasing the survivors, Americans, and people affected
by reminding them to get rid of any hatred in their hearts. This shooting brings up many issues
addressed in the media such as mental illness, violence, the impact of video games, bullying, and
gun safety that Clinton sees this as a window of opportunity and briefly mentions some of these
issues to at least have Americans thinking and debating such matters. He also mentions these
aspects to show the country where he stands on these issues and to portray his advocacy.
Style: Grammatical Person and Identification
The grammatical person in which the rhetor speaks in can negatively or positively impact
the persuasiveness in speech. First and second person generate a less distance between the
between the speaker and the audience. First and second person usage include pronouns such as
I or you which address participants in a situation. Each of these speeches utilizes the first
and second grammatical person voice in order to close the divide between them and their
listeners. Less distance helps the rhetor in persuading his audience and prompts the audience to
be more open and close to the speaker and his/her message. All of the speakers are presidents and
they hold a higher position in society then their audiences do. Thus, one way to close the divide
is by using first and second grammatical person and verb tense.
In order to have less distance between him and his audience, Bush spoke majorly in
second person. He uses the pronoun you the most in his address. You have a compassionate
and resilient community here at Virginia Tech (Bush). The use of you in this case is not
offending and inapplicable to the audience as the main audience consists of people affected by
this attack. Instead of potentially offending, Bush compliments his audience by stating that they

are compassionate and make up a strong community. He even indicates who his specific
audience is by saying community here at Virginia Tech. As explained earlier in this essay, the
audience can be the entire country as this speech was aired on national television, however, the
more specific and main audience consists of those affected by this tragedy. Thus, Bush
compliments and encourages his audience into not only focusing on something other than this
tragedy, but he also by persuading them into believing this message of hope and compassion. In
the process, he is working on his main goal which is trying to appease Americans.
In contrast to Bush, Obama speaks in first person consistently throughout his speech and
it is only toward the end of his speech where he utilizes the pronoun you, switching to a
second person voice. The pronoun I has a personal effect and style on the speech although, the
audience may feel disconnected with the rhetor. However, in Obamas address, the constant use
of first person contributed positively to his persuasive tactics. He uses the pronoun I to not
only explain and state all he did during the aftermath of the Aurora shooting, but he also uses
first person to avoid offending his listeners. For example, he says I had a chance to visit with
each family, and most of the conversation was filled with memory (Obama). Obama effectively
portrays himself as taking action and showing exceptional leadership. Moreover, if he would
have used the pronoun you continually in addressing his audience, they may have become
offended because they might disagree with him or think that they are not included in what
Obama is saying about his listeners. However, due to the nature and purpose of this speech, the
use of you may not offend people. In fact, Clinton uses it to compliment his audience.
Clinton uses I and you consistently throughout his speech. He uses these pronouns
several times to compliment his audience. For instance he says, I am impressed that you are
moving forwardI am proud of all of you who are, in your own way, going back to living your

lives (Clinton). Clinton commends the community, school, and survivors of the Columbine
shooting in moving forward after such a difficult time. Thus, the audience may feel encouraged,
hopeful, and like the acknowledgement of their efforts. Thus, Clinton emotionally appeals to his
audience because his listeners may feel a good vibe toward the rhetor. When the audience feels
a good vibe toward the rhetor and they also feel more relatable to Clinton because he
acknowledges the hardships and emotions they are dealing with.
Language, Emotional Appeal, and Ineffectiveness:
Language can also form a closer relationship between the rhetor and audience. Bush uses
appeasing language to ensure his audiences emotions do not become more riled than they
already are. For instance, instead of using killed or murdered to refer to those who died in
the attacks, Bush states, Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate.
Instead of referring to the victims as being killed, Bush refers to him as whose lives were
taken. Bush avoids stirring the anger and grief audience members may feel after they have just
lost friends and loved ones. Thus, he uses euphemisms and avoids using strong language to in
order to soothe his audiences emotions. The use of euphemistic language is emotionally
appealing to an audience who need their grief and anger to be diminished after a catastrophe.
In contrast, Obama uses strong language which may be ineffective and negatively
impacts his efforts to pacify his listeners. For instance, he says the perpetrator of this evil act
This strong language is contrary to the language Bush uses. Terms such as perpetrator and
evil may further extend the anger and grief the audience feels. The use of such terms may rile
the audiences emotions and be ineffective in pacifying the audience. Pacifying the audience is
one of Obamas objectives while delivering the speech. Moreover, once the audience is even

more riled, they will be more focused on their grief and anger and may not listen to Obamas
message.
Obamas use of strong language can also be seen as effective as it shows him taking
action and a stand against such violence. Sometimes, people need to see such strong attitude
from a president in order to feel relieved that someone is taking charge and will seemingly fix
the situation at hand. When the audience is relieved, their anger and grief may be diminished and
they are more likely to be open and willing to listen to the rhetors message. Such is the case for
Obama and his audience. In contrast, Bush attempts to pacify his audience by using euphemistic
and inactive language. However, in the process of attempting to soothe his audiences emotions,
he may be viewed as passive by some audience members especially those who are not in the live
audience in front of Bush. This speech was aired on television and so some Americans may
perceive Bush as being passive and unwilling to take a stand. This may anger some Americans
and cause them to feel hostility at Bush and they might then be unwilling to listen to his message
and be pacified.
Clinton utilizes language in a slightly different way than Bush and Obama. He
specifically uses language to not only pacify the audiences emotions but he also uses language
to have the audience take action. For instance, he says, You can help us to build a better future
for all our children, a future where hatred and distrust no longer distort the mind or harden the
heart. Clinton then goes on to state more specific things the audience can do such as ensure that
weapons do not get into the hands of children and that unity among people is established. He
uses such powerful and poetic language to inspire his listeners to take action. Terms such as
harden the heart, hatred and distrust, and distort the mind emotionally appeal to the
audience and works successfully for Clinton because the audience do not desire such effects on

themselves. They do not want their hearts hardened or their minds distorted, so the audience
listens to Clinton and are more likely to agree with his message because their emotions are
involved.
As discussed earlier in the essay, it is because Clinton brings up such controversial issues
at a memorial speech, it may seem offensive to some. Gun safety is an increasingly heated topic
and such debates took a heated turn during the Clinton presidency after a series of school
shootings. Although Clinton only briefly and implicitly mentions the importance of gun safety, it
could offend some audience members and they may become more riled. The memorial speech
did take place one month after the Columbine shooting; however some listeners may think it is
too soon to bring up such controversial topics. As the speech is delivered on national television
as well, some Americans who were not directly affected by the massacre may become angered at
the president for bringing up political topics such as gun safety. The Americans who would most
likely be angered and offended are most likely to be on the far right of the political spectrum.
Thus, in attempt to appease his audience and obtaining their agreement, Clinton bringing up such
a controversial topic is ineffective. However, it is effective in Clintons attempts to cause the
people who agree with him to take action.
Ineffectiveness Cont
It is in terms of language and emotional appeal that all three speeches seemed to be
ineffective and effective in some ways. In some ways, the appeasing language is emotionally
appealing as it could be effective in pacifying the audience. Pacifying audience were one of the
main goals shared by all three presidents after the occurrence of tragedies. However, that
inactive language can make the rhetor seem passive and unwilling to take a stand or any action.
This is seen in Bushs speech. In contrast, strong and powerful language can further rile the

audiences emotions and cause them to be unwilling to listen to the rhetor and his message. It
could even make the audience feel hostile toward the rhetor. This can explicitly be seen in
Obamas speech and situation. It is essential to note that some audience members will always be
offended or perceive presidents as being passive. In Bushs case, some audience members may
be appeased while others angered at his passiveness. In Obamas case, some peoples emotions
may be riled due to his strong, powerful language while others may feel relieved that Obama is
taking a stand and as he states, the shooter will feel the full force of our justice system. Some
audience members may be pacified by Obama taking a stand and ensuring that the shooter will
face justice. In Clintons case, the audience may feel pacified by him, like Obama, taking a stand
and showing the audience what they can do. However, some audience members may feel angered
and riled at the controversial issues Clinton brings and they may not agree with him. Thus,
different people will react differently to the speeches, but overall the three speeches were
effective and ineffective in various ways especially in the way language and emotional appeal
were used.
Enargeia
It is interesting that Clinton does not utilize enargeia within his memorial address. The
memorial address is delivered one month after the Columbine shooting. It would be effective to
use some vivid imagery of the attacks in order to attract and maintain his audiences attention.
Although the audience members seated in front of him were all people who were directly or
indirectly affected by these attacks and they do care about the issue and situation at hand, it is
important to remember that his speech is also aired on national television where millions of
Americans watched. Thus, in order to remind Americans of the Columbine massacre and to
stress the importance of gun safety and respect in schools, Clinton should have used more

explicit and vivid imagery within his address. However, as discussed earlier in his speech,
Clinton does use powerful and expressive language which emotionally appeals to his audience.
Moreover, the use of enargeia may have riled the audience even more than they already are, and
it would be counterintuitive to one of Clintons goals which are to appease the audience as well
as to get them to rid of hatred and take action. It is also essential to note that the use of enargeia
for Obama and Clinton is not necessary as their speeches were delivered one and two days after
the attacks. The attacks were recent enough in Obama and Bushs case that the use of enargeia
would be unnecessary and maybe even damaging to their persuasiveness and objectives as it
would deepen the grief and anger their listeners feel. This is because the audience would then
concentrate more on what they were feeling instead of listening to the rhetors message and
being appeased which is one of the unified goals among all three presidents.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/04/200704171.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/22/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-in-auroracolo/
http://voxygen.net/classes/contemporary-public-address/bill-clinton-columbinespeech/