A LEADER’S RHETORIC: Barack Obama’s 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote

In 2004, a young senator from Illinois made a noteworthy keynote at the Democratic National Convention. John Kerry, the then-presidential candidate chosen to stop the G.W. Bush path to a second term, found a valuable spokesperson in Barack Obama. Sixteen years later, this speech seems to be widely considered as the one that «made» Obama a presidential candidate, four years before his actual campaign; why, and how did this keynote produce this impression?

First of all, the speech is remarkably written. It bears a double kind of efficiency, that of personalization and accumulation. Indeed, the striking novelty in Obama’s speech is the way he introduces himself: not as a product of abstract ideas or values, or a party, but as a private person whose history is an embodiment of American history. The identity of his relatives, their involvement in the American army, and World War Two coupled with their continued effort to rise above their condition allows Barack Obama to present himself as an American destiny. This new political style, hereby set in motion, recently found some kind of an heiress in the person of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Obama addresses his fellow citizen, quoting the political labels or cities they come from: «Democrats, Republicans, Independents» from Illinois to Missouri. The senator tells the tale of workers losing their jobs for Mexico, of a father unable to pay his son’s medical bills or a young woman who despite her good grades can’t afford to go to college.

This argumentative choice of practical situations puts an identity, even unspecific, onto anonymous citizens; it allows people to identify, feel empathy, and for those who can relate, a sense of dignity reaffirmed. This technique merged with an accumulation of situations and an efficient gradation of intensity prepares the audience for the paramount moment of the speech, illustrated by a simple example of a child.

Indeed, when Obama states that if a child in Chicago can’t read because of his socio-economic situation, that it matters to him and should matter to everyone, it immediately brings outrage, sympathy, and compassion. How wouldn’t it? This situation of deep distress speaks to everyone, to every heart, and fuels the powerful feeling of injustice. Obama uses this example to reassert a basic yet elaborated political principle: that if my fellow citizen can’t enjoy the same freedom that I do, I’m not free either, I am merely benefiting from injustice and privilege. Through this reassertion of the constitutional universality of freedom via this practical example, the Illinois senator reaches the hearts and consciences, instead of giving a moral or theoretical lecture to the audience. It gives him the latitude to expose abstract ideals to an emotionally available crowd. For instance, though he maintains the moral value of the American individual pursuit of happiness, the enumeration of individual situations, specific locations, and political affiliations melt into the appeal of togetherness as one nation composed by its variations: the United States of America.

Obama establishes the possibility of this unity on a yet again simple, but powerful statement: «I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our dreams and yet still come together as one American family.» He then ends the effect of gradation: «E Pluribus unum: out of many, one.»

This general orchestration of the desire for unity, thanks to literary techniques and practical rhetoric is coronated by skillful, emotional use of hope. Four years before the viral visual campaign posters, the young senator displays his rhetorical and charismatic agility through the use of repetition. Hope is uttered twelve times, and thrice «I believe». Thanks to Obama’s outstanding speaker capacities, it generates a hypnotic rhythm, progressively settling in the audience’s body. The public is caught.

This specific use of word repetition to create rhythm can easily remind of Martin Luther King’s way. This comparison can grow deeper if we consider the pastoral rationality: a specific way of caring at the same time about each person, and simultaneously about everyone as a whole, as a flock. This two-faced kind of power exercise is hence twice as efficient, and well-accepted thanks to its caring nature.

What makes this keynote so powerful and dreadfully efficient is that several levels of dialectique lie in a very simple argumentative structure, served by a simple choice of words. Also, every dialectical level finds its resolution in a unified political vision, as it follows: the tension between practical situations and universal values is solved in the right examples found in people’s lives. Likewise, the classical dichotomy between unity and plurality is solved in the concept of multiplicity, illustrated by America’s motto E Pluribus Unum. Besides, the deep and very contemporary chiasmus between the individual sacred freedom and the value of solidarity is solved in the principle of reciprocity. Also, the classical confrontation between tradition and progress finds its resolution into the community of destiny as a nation. As a gifted politician, Barack Obama also finds a way to seduce both Democrats and Republicans by declaring his adamantine faith into the infinite possibilities America offers as the land of opportunity. Finally, and this is related to the post 9/11 era, Obama finds a way to solve the stark opposition between the wave of patriotism and the healthy critique of its consequences in terms of national security and foreign military involvement through the simple demand of truth.

We thus have here a sophisticated discursive regime of efficiency, expanding on three very different levels of engagement: intellectual, emotional, and even physical. We know today how successful this method has been. Yet, discussing this admirable keynote in 2020 isn’t so easy: despite knowing everything that happened after, one must discard it to be fair. Nonetheless, it seems fair as well to stress out some of the prominent problems this political style unfolded. The hyper-personalization of politics — which was underway before Barack Obama and is well challenged by other political systems — has generated two different logics of political withdrawal from the voters. Firstly, this political trend implies a lack of care about the political platform: we don’t vote for ideas, but for a person, if we like his or her personality. It doesn’t have much to do with how we’d like to organize our life in common, but much rather about how we want to be ruled by a strong leader. Secondly, the amount of emotional charge bred by the love or hate of a politician is a two-faced blade: love and enthusiasm can quickly become a disappointment, and instead of disappearing, this emotional charge continues to fuel the dangerous polarisation of politics— at display today in the United States.

Transcript of the speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html

By Prune Zammarchi

Prune Zammarachi, aged 26, is a french student post-graduated in Contemporary Philosophy and Political Science. She seeks to develop her career in Geopolitics and International Relations. Throughout years of research, she specialized in Political Philosophy and Science, more precisely on logics of power. She worked at political and social institutions on the effects of the political speeches, on the grassroots of speeches, and on government policies