The 2018 State of the Union Address and Response: Were they Effective?

Trump inside of the majestic Capital Building during
his 2018 State of the Union Address

          Every year, the president of the United States is required to give a State of the Union Address. These speeches aren't know to have changed too much throughout the years. This year was different -- because this year, was Trump's turn. Trump is not typically recognized for having the most stellar speaking abilities of our presidents. Trump uses a style that is much... different from previous presidents. Instead of using stale political jargon, Trump goes for a more straightforward, outsider approach to most of his speeches. This tactic varies from nearly all modern politicians, but different isn't always better.
          Trump's main tactic used in this speech was creating patriotism throughout America. There were many ways in which he achieved this, some being effective, and others... not so much.
          For Trump to be able to make Americans proud of their country, he must first unite them. He attempted this by including quotes such as, "...I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens of every background, color, religion and creed." This was done to reach as wide of an audience as he possibly could, and to try and heal a bit of the divisiveness that plagues America and many other parts of the world. Trump also wore a blue tie to this speech. It is common for politicians to sport the colors of the opposing party as a bit of a "peace offering," letting the other party know that he is not completely against them, and are willing to set aside your differences. Sadly, it takes a lot more than a tie to make people willingly cross party lines.

          The first method in which Trump aimed to create patriotism, is through the use of facts and statistics. The speech is littered with statistics that not only make himself and his administration look good, but America as a whole. For example, "Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history." This quote is designed to make Americans glad to be alive during Trump's administration, by highlighting how more Americans are participating in the work force. He was also sure to include the record low unemployment rates of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Since Trump is often portrayed as not being immigrant and minority "friendly," this was a way for him to show the listeners that he isn't leaving anyone behind, and that he is fighting for all Americans, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
Not everything shared in this speech could be sunshine and rainbows. Trump also cited negative statistics to show what his plans are for the future. This includes, "In 2016, we lost 64,000 Americans to drug overdoses: 174 death per day. Seven per hour. We must get much tougher on drugs deals and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge." This was done to bring attention to a current issue that Trump's administration plans to solve: the drug abuse problem/opioid epidemic. This tactic is compelling as many viewers are more concerned about the future rather than making the State of the Union Address all about Trump's accomplishments.
Another one of Trump's methods of establishing patriotism is through real life examples of heroic and inspiring feats done by Americans. One of these was the story of Sergeant Justin and Officer Kenton Stacy, to which Trump said, "Justin and his comrade, Chief Petty Officer Kenton Stacy were clearing a building that ISIS had rigged with explosives so that civilians could return to that city hopefully soon and hopefully safely." This story of how Sergeant Justin, Officer Stacy, and others saved the lives of many displays the bravery of America's military and truly does make me feel proud to be American.
However, not all of these stories proved to be effective in creating patriotism. For example, Trump used a story about a police officer who adopted the child of a struggling homeless pregnant woman who was unable to care for her future child. This story seemed to have no purpose until Trump himself said to the officer and his wife, "You embody the goodness of our Nation. Thank you, and congratulations." The truth is, no one listening would draw this conclusion if Trump had not done so for them, meaning this story would likely just be better left out completely. Another example of an anecdote Trump shared that did not achieve much of a goal was the story of Seong-ho. This was a horrific, yet touching story about a North Korean man who lost multiple limbs trying to get food. "Seong-ho traveled thousands of miles on crutches across China and Southeast Asia to freedom." I love this story, and it was selected by Trump to highlight North Korea's human rights violations, but there is nothing else to it besides it being a tear-jerker. Trump said Seong-ho's fight for freedom is what makes him representative of American culture, and that may have been true about America's past, but not many modern-day Americans have endured this much hardship for freedom, making it a difficult story to resonate with.

          Shortly after President Trump's State of the Union Address, came a response from Joe Kennedy III, on behalf of the Democratic Party. Joe Kennedy was a very worthy candidate to give this speech. He himself is a relatively young politician, he is a confident and fluent speaker, and he is a supporter of many mainstream beliefs of the democratic party. Perhaps the most important reason Joe Kennedy was selected to speak was because of that fact that he is related to John F. Kennedy, one of the most famous and beloved democratic presidents in history. This gives Joe Kennedy automatic ethos, even among people who may have never heard of him before. This credibility proves itself very useful as many viewers will already begin listening with great amounts of trust in Kennedy. No matter how much a person has going out for themselves, they are not guaranteed to give an impelling speech.

Joe Kennedy has since claimed the reason for his "drool"
was due to the overuse of chapstick.

          Arguably the most effective part of Joe Kennedy's speech was his ability to properly recognize and appeal to his targeted audiences. Unlike President Trump's speech, which was directed to all Americans (in addition to those present in the Capital Building), Joe Kennedy's speech reaches a much narrower range of people to which he addresses very well. Joe begins his rebuttal by appealing to residents of the city he is delivering the speech in, Fall River, Massachusetts. Kennedy said, "Fall River has faced its share of storms. But people here are tough. they fight for each other. They pull for their city." This use of flattery empowers and unifies citizens of Fall River, making them feel as if Kennedy is on their side. Kennedy also uses this location to begin appealing to immigrants, he does this by saying, "We are here in Fall River, Massachusetts - a proud American city, built by immigrants." Another quote with similar intentions is, "...An administration [Trump Admin.] that callously appraises our worthiness and decides who makes the cut and who can be bargained away." These acknowledgements of American Immigrants are just a few of many throughout this speech. The most obvious of these is the usage of the Spanish language to gather support from Hispanic Americans. This quote goes as follows, "And to all the Dreamers watching tonight, let me be clear: Ustedes son parte de nuestra historia. Vamos a luchar por ustedes y no nos vamos alejar." In English, this translates to, "You are part of our history. We are going to fight for you and we are not going away." This tactic of using a group's native language to better connect with them can be very rewarding, but can backfire if done carelessly. Luckily, Kennedy can speak fluent Spanish and was able to deliver this remark beautifully, with impressive pronunciation. However, even though this tactic was received well by Spanish Americans, it excludes everyone everyone else in the United States, creating a massive disconnect and limiting the quote's success with larger audiences.

          Perhaps one of the reasons Kennedy's speech ended up so pathos heavy was because of his frequent use of the "moral high ground" strategy. This strategy relies on making mostly vague claims, whether they are true or not, that make the opposing side seem so cold hearted and evil, that your audience is forced to take your side, which becomes much better in comparison. This tactic proves itself to be so effective because even if someone doesn't fully agree with you, they are likely to take your side in fear or being incorporated with the opposition. For example, Kennedy says, "For them [Trump Admin.], dignity isn't something you're born with but something you measure." This quote is a perfect example of taking moral high ground. It is a clear jab at the opposition, it implies that measuring someone's dignity is wrong, and let's the audience know that he believes that people are born with dignity. Another quote meant to achieve this goal is as follows, "They [Trump Admin and political right] are turning American life into a zero-sum game. Where, in order for one to win, another must lose." This quote lets the audience know that Kennedy and the democratic party believe everyone deserves a shot at winning.Another example goes as follows, "Not the mention, the gender of your spouse. The country of your birth. The color of your skin. The God of your prayers." This is another well executed use of this strategy as it appeals to several minority groups in America. It also implies that the opposing side (Trump Admin. and the politically right) are insanely prejudice and makes judgments based on personal appearance and lifestyle choices, rather than through character. Although this tactic proves to be very effective among many members of his targeted audience, it has no effect on me and many others due to the fact that his claims have no or supporting evidence, they are just statements. Unfortunately, this is where Kennedy's speech suffered the most. There was no logos, little ethos, and completely overblown amounts of pathos. If only drooling Joe used more facts and less chapstick, he would've had a more convincing speech. Sad!

          Trump and Kennedy's speeches both proved to be successful in achieving their desired intentions. They both reached their intended audiences, outlined their beliefs and future plans, and were received very well by listeners. In terms of who's speech was more effective as a whole, I'm going to have to give it to Trump -- shocker! Contrary to Kennedy's speech, Trump's speech uses a much better - although still not perfect - balance of ethos, logos, and pathos. Kennedy's speech overly relied on pathos and ethos, while almost completely neglecting to use any logos, making many of his claims hard to agree with.