Rhetoric Analysis Of Hilary Clinton

1552 Words7 Pages
Not only was the 2016 Presidential election full of controversy, it was also bursting with multiple forms of rhetoric. Rhetoric was best defined by the 300 B.C. philosopher Aristotle, who stated that rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” (Rapp, 2010) This definition has lasted through the centuries; to this day it is still one of the prominent definitions of rhetoric in America. President Donald J Trump and, runner up, Hilary Clinton both used rhetoric throughout their campaign very effectively. The candidates of this election not only used rhetoric and its canons to successfully persuade the American people, they did it in a way that will shape politics for many elections to come. Leadership…show more content…
She brought to the table a new idea that was supposed to rock the American people and shatter the glass ceiling. That brand new idea was partially her leading as the first women president, but also the encompassing idea that we need to break down social barriers in America. Her rhetoric focused around this idea throughout her entire campaign. A perfect example of this would be in Mrs. Clinton’s concession speech. In her speech Mrs. Clinton remarks, “It was about the country we love and building an America that is hopeful, inclusive, and big-hearted. We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought.” (Golshan, 2016). Mrs. Clinton uses the canon of rhetoric invetio to proclaim that she was fighting for an inclusive America; an America that would be best lead by a women president. This is a completely new idea in our country and she was at the forefront of it. The rhetoric that Mrs. Clinton used was very effective, and even through all of her scandals, she convinced millions of Americans and even had the popular vote. Her leadership tactics were very different from President Trump, making for an extremely interesting…show more content…
When it comes to rhetoric and people one of the most motivating factors is fear. When you are trying to persuade a country, it is very effective to scare them and then offer yourself as an answer. Trump did exactly this with ISIS. Wendy Wood, in a thesis about persuasion and social influences mentions fear appeals. Mrs. Wood explains to us that, “Fear, like other affective responses, appears to impact extent of processing. At low-to-moderate levels, fear functions, like personal involvement and increases processing. Increased processing may explain the often-obtained finding that fear facilitates influence and acceptance.” (Wood, 2000) If fear influences social acceptance, then President trump used a very effective rhetoric technique to socially influence people to vote for him. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton preached rhetoric that was inclusive and much friendlier. While this is the politically correct route, it is debatably much less effective in influencing society to vote for you. This is seemingly a huge reason why President Trump won the
Open Document