The 1992 U.S. Presidential Debate, Essay Example

The concepts logos, ethos and pathos, introduced by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, remain compelling notions with which to think through how public discourse is carried out. This means that there are various techniques being utilized, which speakers use to convince a listener as to the validity of his or her argumentation: logos, ethos and pathos are precisely such techniques. The 1992 U.S. Presidential Debate between Republic candidate George Bush and Democratic candidate Bill Clinton is an excellent example of Aristotle’s concepts at work. The Presidential Debate by its very nature is an event aimed at bringing the voter closer to the viewpoint expressed by the candidate and thereby win election or re-election. It is therefore a context in which rhetorical devices are clearly used to gain such a result. The following paper shall analyze this particular debate in terms of the concepts of logos, ethos and pathos, so as to show how both candidates used these techniques. The analysis will show that both Bush and Clinton used a combination of Aristotelian rhetorical devices in an attempt to sway the voter to the merits of their viewpoints: a combination of these devices namely allows one to re-enforce the strength of their argument on a number of different levels.

The usage of these devices is clear in the initial question posed by an audience member: how are the candidates personally affected by the problem of national debt? This is, of course, a loaded question, since the questioner knew that the candidates were affluent. In essence, the question was a criticism: the questioner was stating that politicians, because of their affluent status, cannot relate to the problems of everyday voters, and therefore are not competent to address problems such as the national debt. Bush’s immediate response to the question is to pretend that he does not understand it; this is itself not one of the aforementioned rhetorical devices. However, he then employs logos in an attempt to overcome the personal nature of the question: he re-phrases the true intent of the question, asking the audience member if she really means that people of “means” (note Bush uses the euphemism of “means” and not a potentially loaded term such as “rich people”) can truly understand the personal and community effects of a problem such as national debt. This use of logos therefore effectively exposes the logic of the question, revealing the true intent of the audience member to criticize the affluence of politicians.

At the same time, Bush demonstrates that a combination of rhetorical devices must be used to make an effective persuasive argument. After revealing the personal intent of the initial question, Bush then goes on to utilize the rhetorical device of pathos: he states to the questioner, that she should spend one day in the Whitehouse and see the concerns Bush is communicated everyday about economic problems, for example, in the form of letters from financially strapped Americans. Bush therefore tries to establish pathos with the audience by telling of how he attended a “black church” (the question was asked by an African-American) and how he read a church bulletin which told the problems being faced by the constituents.

Bush uses this anecdote to try to establish that he is not disconnected from the concerns of the everyday people, but remains personally engaged in issues of economic distress, as opposed to merely being another affluent politician, concluding with the imperative that “you’ve got to care”: in other words, it does not matter if someone is affluent, they still must feel pain and concern at the sight of others struggling. Bush therefore uses ethos to establish his connection with the voter, despite his wealth. He wants to show that he is credible and that he truly cares about the average voter.

Bush, however, then once again uses logos to conclude his response: he proposes an analogy where he relates it to having cancer. He states that to say that he is not sensitive to issues of recession and debt is the same as saying that if one does not have cancer then one cannot grieve for someone who has cancer. Bush therefore tries to expose the logical shortcomings of the question, whereby experience becomes a precondition for dealing with a problem or feeling compassionate about a particular problem.

Clinton, at the same time uses, all three devices in a very quick time span and in a more cohesive fashion in response to the same question. He begins by attempting to establish “ethos”, his credibility as someone who cares: he walks towards the audience member who asks the question, and then asks them a personal question of how the economic difficulties has affected her. He then states that he has been governor of a small state and sees these types of problems constantly, and therefore understands them. Pathos is thus established by Clinton’s emphasis that he is governor of a small state, and therefore more in touch with the concerns of everyday individuals, citing numerous examples of heartbreaking stories about losses because of economic problems, thus addressing the emotions at stake in the issue. Lastly, Clinton closes by using logos: he explicitly blames the economic theory of “trickle down economics” practiced by the Republicans as the reason for economic problems. He therefore logically identifies the causes behind the problems.

Both presidential candidates employ devices of logos, pathos and ethos in their responses. This demonstrates the continued importance of these devices as a tool of rhetoric and discourse. The fact that both speakers combine all these devices in a singular answer demonstrates that the most effective argument is one that incorporates all these different devices, since it is able to convince the listener as to the validity of the speaker’s position from a multitude of different perspectives.