Biden's State of the Union speech
Some notes about the rhetoric behind the US President, Joe Biden's address to the nation.
Yesterday I tuned into President Joe Biden’s annual State of the Union address.
American political speeches are great case studies for people interested in political rhetoric and communication. So I thought I’d sketch some of the rhetorical moves Biden used:
American Exceptionalism
Trump gets rightly criticised for some of his “Make America Great Again” sloganeering. But he’s not alone in thinking of the US as a nation apart from others with a unique history, destiny and mission. All US presidents (and some non American politicians) believe this, including Biden.
So it’s no surprise that Biden’s speech contained lots of references to American exceptionalism. This also says something about the context or “kairos” of the State of the Union speech: it’s an address to the nation, not a scout club. Nonetheless Biden’s speech was peppered by statements like
"The story of America is a story of progress and resilience, of always moving forward of never ever giving up…” and “Standing here last year, I shared with you a story of American genius and possibility…” and “We’re making sure the supply chain for America begins in America.”
But it’s not just exceptionalism tropes. To add spice, Biden uses the rhetorical tactic of "begging the question”. He asked:
"Where is it written that America can’t lead the world in manufacturing again?"
The answer, of course being, that it isn't written anywhere, but that’s clearly not the point.
Rhetorical alignment: using “pathos” to set up "logos”
Biden has a rhetorical trick that he turns to again and again and it’s one I use when I’m training people to do media interviews.
It starts from the fundamental truth that humans are emotional animals. Forget what the canonical economic textbooks say, people are not simple fact processing machines.
Biden gets this and instead of rolling off a list of dry statistics about the economy, he takes time in his speech to set the listener up, to cultivate the mind of his audience by using “pathos” or emotional engagement.
“As my Dad used to say, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, “Honey –it’s going to be OK,” and mean it."
It’s hard to read this passage without feeling something, especially the last line. Biden is signalling to his audience “hey.. I feel your pain, I’m with you, I’m aligned with you.”
But then, having cultivated them with pathos, he hits home the stats:
"… look at the results. Unemployment at 3.4%, a 50-year low. Near record low unemployment for Black and Hispanic workers. We’ve already created 800,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs, the fastest growth in 40 years.”
It’s textbook rhetorical alignment. Too often politicians and activists, especially in the UK, go straight to facts, thinking that knowledge alone is enough to win people over. But the point of rhetoric is to persuade and to really make ideas stick in people's minds you need to cultivate those minds.
You wouldn't throw seeds on any random bit of soil and expect roses to grow. Likewise ideas don’t take root if you just throw them carelessly at people. Biden takes care to "cultivate" the minds listening to him, and only having done that, does he move to sowing his facts.
A value like “fairness” needs contextual signifiers so people know who and what is fair.
On taxation, Biden is really interesting because he uses the value of “fairness” to set up an an argument about raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The problem with "fairness" is that it's one of those things that's always "in the eye of the beholder."
What does this mean? For example: the things I find beautiful are personal to me and will differ from the things that you find beautiful.
And it's the same with concepts like "fairness." I think inequality is unfair and I want to end it. But conservatives are more comfortable with inequality, they are more likely to believe that hierarchy is natural, right and providential. Hopefully this helps explain how an appeal to “fairness” can easily be misinterpreted. Effective messaging benefits from being clear and unambiguous.
To overcome this, in his speech Biden does three things to help signify what he means by fairness. In doing this he’s not giving a list of his values (that would be boring), instead he’s saying whose side he’s on. He:
Aligns with his own political base
Seeks to persuade persuadables (thoroughly polled and focus grouped for sure);
Alienates his opponent by creating a villain, in this case: "Big Pharma" "corporations" and the "wealthy"
“Too many of you lay in bed at night staring at the ceiling, wondering what will happen if your spouse gets cancer, your child gets sick, or if something happens to you… But, Big Pharma has been unfairly charging people hundreds of dollars – and making record profits. Not anymore….”
"And we pay for these investments in our future by finally making the wealthiest and the biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share.
“I’m a capitalist. But just pay your fair share. I think a lot of you at home agree with me that our present tax system is simply unfair. The idea that in 2020, 55 of the biggest US companies made $40 bn in profits and paid zero in federal income taxes? That’s simply not fair.”
This is a remarkable section when you think about it. I can’t imagine a single frontline British politician saying something like this. Biden is following the advice of the celebrate progressive strategic comms expert and campaigner, Anat Shenker Osario.
He's standing shoulder-to-shoulder with his base; pointing over the shoulder of the persuadables and saying
“Look at them. What they [Big Pharma, the corporations and the wealthy] are doing, is not fair."
It’s comms 101 really: “connect the dots”. If you are going to use a concept like fairness, you need to make it absolutely clear what you mean, and who your criticism is aimed at. Some would call this "populism" but I imagine Biden’s team focus grouped this speech to hell. And I’d wager there is a strong majority in favour taxing US corporations and the wealthy more.
The final thing I'll say about this section is how Biden reaches "over the heads" of his audience (senators, media etc). "I think a lot of you at home agree with me that our present tax system is simply unfair." Good to hear Biden talk to "Marge" here.
So in conclusion:
American exceptionalism isn’t just a trope of the right, it’s used by politicians across the political spectrum
Rhetorical alignment: people aren’t fact processing machines, if you want to persuade people using knowledge you need to be willing to prepare them first.
Energise the base, persuade the persuadable, alienate your opponents.