Famous Speeches and Rhetorical Analysis

Crisis of Institute of Family.

            What happens to the family? The small cell of the social organism of mankind, through which for centuries and millennia the material and spiritual values, traditions and culture of communities and nations were transferred, is seriously ill. After the social upheavals of the century, the secularization of society, the relativization of the values of the post-industrial era, the emancipation of women and feminism, the family experiences a period of mutation.

The crisis of the family as an institution became evident by the end of the 1970s. XX century. It manifests itself in an unusually high (up to half of the number of marriages) divorce rates and the growing share of incomplete families, in the level of fertility, which is substantially lower than that necessary for the “reproduction” of the population. Other manifestations of the crisis are the replacement of a normal marriage by “living together”, the appearance of “same-seуx marriages”. The same is signaled by the popularity of political theories stemming from the fundamental absence of differences between the sexes, despite the fact that one of the “equal” sexes (as previously “oppressed”) should be “more equal”.

For 26 years (1980-2006), the number of marriages in the EU countries decreased by more than 737 thousand (-23.9%), reaching a critical level. The marriage rate (the number of marriages per thousand people) decreased from 6.75 in 1980 to 4.85 in 2006. In some countries, this decline has reached a catastrophic level. In the UK, Portugal and Belgium, the number of marriages has increased by 33%, and in Bulgaria, Slovenia and Hungary – almost 50% less than in 1980.

Moreover, the number of European families is declining. For 25 years (1980-2005), the average size of families has decreased from 2.82 people to 2.4. In some countries, this figure barely exceeds 2 people: in Germany (2.1), Denmark (2.1), Finland (2.1) and Sweden (2.2). The largest size of the average family is recorded in Malta (3.2), Cyprus (3.1), Romania (2.9) and Spain (2.9). In the same time, the number of families consisting of one person is growing. Their share reached 27.7%. More than 54 million Europeans live alone. There are more and more families where there are no children – 67%. And only 17% of families have two or more children.

Moreover, every fifth pregnancy (18.5%) ends with an abortion. And this means that abortion is the main cause of death in Europe. The largest share of abortions was recorded in France (206311), Great Britain (194353), Romania (150246), Italy (129272), Germany (119710) and Spain (101592). The fastest growth in the number of abortions (almost twice) in 1996-2006. was observed in Spain.

Statistical data and researches of European scientists show that the crisis of the family do not only exists, but also actively progresses. “Demographic winter” has led to the fact that many countries compensate for the gradual degeneration of the ethnic majority by the influx of immigrants.

Immigration has become the basis of demographic growth in almost all European countries. Only in France and Holland the natural increase exceeds the influx of immigrants. In Italy, there is a negative natural increase (-0.2 million), while the rate of immigration is 15 times higher (+2.9 million). A similar situation in Germany, which compensates for the natural decline in the population (-1.1 million) due to immigrants. Today, 3 out of every 5 immigrants arriving in Europe fall on Spain and Italy. In Hungary, the Czech Republic and Latvia there is a natural decline in population with a low level of immigration. Poland, Romania and Lithuania lose their population as a result of emigration.

However, European countries do not enough pay particular attention to family policy. Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Austria allocate more than 3% of their GDP to families, with Denmark (3.8% of GDP) and Luxembourg (3.6% of GDP) offering the most help to families. In a number of countries, family assistance is not among government priorities. Poland, Malta, Spain, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Italy and Portugal spend less than 1.2% of their GDP on this, well below the European average.

This essay will address the root causes of the crisis of the institution of the family, the consequence of which has already caused the “Demographic winter” in the European Union. The solution of this problem is of paramount importance for the protection of ethnic groups in Europe, as well as for the institution of the family, as the fundamental basis for social development and maturation of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the EU there is no body that would be responsible for the family policy. Although there are 5 vice-presidents and 21 committees within the European Commission, no one deals exclusively with the affairs of the family. The Committee on Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities is responsible for solving family problems. In 2004, the European Center for the Study of Family Policy, established in 1989, ceased to exist. Instead, a body with a wider range of tasks (the Demographic and Social Observatory) was established. There are no dedicated to the family policy of the so-called “Green Books” (Green Papers). Of the 95 “Green Books” published since 1984, none is dedicated to the institution of the family.

In this case, one of the main goals that should be achieved is to stimulate the development of a “family-oriented” state policy and encourage the government to pursue a real, effective, comprehensive and universal family policy.

Such a policy should:

 

• Give the family institution a status of political priority;

 

• make the “family-oriented” approach an integral part of all activities of the European Union;

 

• Recognize the rights of the family in all spheres and promote their implementation, especially in the upbringing and education of children;

 

• Promote the convergence of the policies of individual Member States in this field;

 

• Achieve equality of opportunity for all European families, avoiding discrimination based on the number of children, the level and distribution of income, etc.

 

All this requires proper structures, budget allocations, planning, methods and legislation.

However, weakness of family institution has already caused a birth deficit, an increase in the number of divorces and a significant decrease in marriages in the EU. To strengthen the institution of the family, we should facilitate the following steps:

1. Establishment (within the EU structure) of the Commission for Family Affairs, which would ensure that the family is given the status of political priority in the EU countries and its recognition by European legislation as the main unit of society, with rights and a role that should be respected and strengthened.
2. Call for Member States to establish ministries for family affairs that have sufficient organizational and budgetary capabilities.
3. Preparation of the “Green Book” on family problems in Europe, which would include analysis of family problems, their causes and consequences, proposals for their solution, alternative options for action.
4. Achieving a pan-European agreement on family issues between political parties, social services and organizations dealing with family issues.

 

On the other hand, economic support for families is one of the top priorities for solving the family crisis.

There is an obvious link between direct assistance to families and the number of children. Countries that provide more tangible family benefits also have a higher birth rate. For example, in France, Ireland and Luxembourg families with children enjoy significant benefits, so there are more children and a higher fertility rate. In Spain, Poland and Italy, on the contrary, the levels of payments are very low; accordingly, in these countries there are few children and a low birth rate.

The birth rate is affected by differences in the duration of maternity leave, the possibilities of its extension and the amounts of the paid content. Although the average duration of maternity leave is set at 23 weeks, two-thirds of European countries (66%) do not provide such a period. Only a few States allow in special cases a substantial extension of maternity leave. Such cases include: the presence of a large family, multiple births, etc. In some countries, maternity leave is paid at the rate of 100% of wages, in others the amounts paid are lower, and in some countries, payments are not made at all. There is a direct correlation between the volume of social payments for family needs and the level of poverty among children. The higher the volume of family benefits, the lower the probability of child poverty.

It is necessary to gradually bring together the policy of family support in various European countries and increase the fund for material support of families, which implies:

1. The allocation by all countries, at the end of five years, of at least 2.5% of GDP for social assistance to families;
2. The transition of all countries during the five-year period to a universal family support system;
3. Joint financing of benefits for dependent children, provided that these benefits should be universal;
4. Convergence of national tax systems aimed at the exemption of family benefits from taxation;
5. Annual indexation of family payments in accordance with the rate of inflation.
6. Encouraging governments to more evenly distribute social spending and gradually increase the share of family benefits in them, currently it is at 8%.
7. Taking measures to support maternity, namely:
   • Reduction of the value added tax for a number of important children’s goods (children’s hygiene items, food products, children’s furniture items);
   • Establishment of centers for the care of pregnant women to help all mothers during pregnancy, whether married or single.

To be continued…

 

Great American saga or Great American Journey, as it was cold by some of the critics, is one of the strategies of Obama rhetoric. Listeners of the speech were convoyed through the narrative of the Obama and his relatives’ life to emphasize the American uniqueness, ideals and beliefs, that are proved by the story of the black African boy with a funny name, who now as a great leader is speaking in front of the American nation. We are persuaded by the Obama speech and even could trust that he understands and belief in American and democracy ideals, but this speech was obliged to make us vote for the Senator Kerry, not for the Barack Obama.

In terms of Stasis Question, on my opinion, there were not any stasis points. There were a lot of great word and beautiful claims about the believes and wills, wishes of democrats. There were short observations of the social problems as health policy and financing of the education or military policy, but they quickly passed away by the pressure of the idea, that if we all be aimed for the democratic ideals, that were gave us by the Constitution, then, Obama or democrats believe, we will be able to give job to everyone, open opportunities for a middle class, and meet “tomorrow challenges” (c. Zell Miller).  Thus, we should vote for the democrat’s party candidate, who, by the words of Obama, belief in the American nation and its liberal future. (I fill myself as a participant of the Republican party, but no, I’m still independent)

This speech was great in terms of ethos and pathos, it even (my opinion) was amazing in appealing to the emotions of the audience. Usage of narrative and signs was also on high level as well as inductive reasoning of Obama, that help to construct the pathetical argument, why we should vote for Kerry.  However, there was great lack of logos, there were only ideals, faith and believes and no plays for the logical proves. Also, there was used a false authority of Senator Kelly, that was given to him by the Obama, who said that: Kelly thinks the same way as I think, and the same way as we all should think to achieve national prosperity.

I like this speech, however, there were not any solutions, propositions, from Senator Kelly’s political program, or any observations of thing he has done as a politician and their positive outcome. This speech is suffering from the “material” arguments why we should vote for Kerry.

 

In his speech, John F. Kennedy was overcoming the problem of “The nuclear arms race” and common faith into “iron” solution of the Cold War conflict, solution through the power of weapon and “deadly atom”.

To overcome this, at least in the mind of his audience, first of all, in his speech Kennedy showed respect to all sides of Cold War, friends of the USA, neutral sides, and opposed side (communist), however, secondly he emphasized the “comfort” of current course of conflict, where : “both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind’s final war.”

Thus, Kennedy proposed a new course of international relationship – negotiation. In this case, in terms of Stasis, he changed the definition of the negotiation itself, from the instrument that could be used by dominating or weak side of conflict to find a better way to end up conflict, to an instrument that could help equal sides to get rid of “common problems” caused by conflict. Negotiation, in this case, could solve the current conflict in a peaceful, thus is a good choice by its nature and consequences. Let’s find a way to worldwide peace by solving and discussing the issue on a common ground of problems that could destroy our nations and ideals, even if this negotiation would take a long time! – here is Kennedy’s policy. It is Credible, feasible and plausible for all people around the word? No.

By my opinion, one of the greatest question of this speech, who is an audience? According to my mind, audience of this speech is American citizens and people who support democratical ideals, but not an opposite side of a conflict – communists. To prove it, we could observe the statement: “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

I’m more than sure that President Kennedy was well informed about the ideals and beliefs of the communist’s society. The faiths that everything achievable by the hard work of people, who a equal and have the same goal. For communist God was their common faith into the Party and communism. Churches were used as schools, clubs (for activists), and party’s meetings. No place for God. Rights were achieved by blood of common people, who were fighting for them, but no “from the hand of God”.

In this case, what is this speech? First, it is “send to the eyes” of the American citizens to persuade them that negotiation is possible, and America is ready for them, because government realize the “disastrous” consequences of the conflict. Second, it is a demonstration of liberal and democratical ideas of America for the United Nation members.

In this case, “to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.” – This word are guarantees for the Alliance’ members that they will have benefit continue supporting the USA.

“All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” – It is a way to escape from the responsibility for Kennedy’s purpose for the negotiation and common peace.: “When? Not today, but it will be done, maybe tomorrow”.

Finally, one side of Kennedy’s policy is: “country”, however, he did not answer what they can do, everything depends on the common citizens of countries, but what can they do “for the freedom of the men”? They can belief in the democratic ideals and to the fact that everything in the hands of Fate Or God, who gave us rights, but will it solve the issue?

In this case, it is one more motivational statement to support the USA side and system of believes in the dark times of the Cold War.

To sum up, did Kennedy overcome the common idea that solution of the conflict lays in the field of weapon and ideological clench? Probably, yes, it was done by praising the democratic ideals, emphasizing the disastrous consequences of the “deadly atom” race and providing the credible, feasible and plausible looks policy for a common people.  However, the main idea of this speech, probably, was to increase support from the members of Nation Union, attract new members and to enrich the USA authority.

 

           

I believe in bad luck. Today I want to show you another attitude toward troubles that were not caused by our “choice”. I want to describe my way to a more positive life style.

            I was fourteen years old when one event and its outcome, changed my way of thinking,. It was an ordinary day, quite warm for a Siberian autumn. Who knew that after that day I would stay in a hospital bed for three months without the ability to turn myself on another side.

            During our physical education class, we were supposed to climb on a rope. However I fell down from the rope to the mat below. The day before my accident a new rope was delivered to our school, although it was a bit longer than it was supposed to be. No one took care to cut it, but they made a knot and hided it under one of the mats.  By wish of bad fortune, I fell down exactly on this knot, which was ideally suited to the center of my back, right between 10th and 12th vertebras. A Broken spine is not one of the things that you want to wish to anyone, but it happened to me.

            Laying in the hospital and looking to the ceiling I had enough time to think over my life. Also, I had time to count more than 19 thousand dots on the ceiling, but this is not part of my story. I realized that in our life there is not so much place for prediction. I can be sure that a pen will fell down on a floor, if I drop it, because it is a law of nature. A bit less, but I can be sure about results of actions that depends on me. However, there is a human factor, actions and decisions of other people, that could change our whole life.

            So, laying on my back during more than three months, I realized that people have nothing to do with bad luck, occasional circumstances and wish to scratch their backs. What is bad luck? Benjamin Franklin once said: ”I am a strong believer in luck and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.” In this case, missed opportunities are not bad luck, it is my careless. Moreover, even money that I lost in Las-Vegas is not bad luck, as it is my choice to take a risk with my money. Everything that depends on me and my choice has nothing to do with luck. But stormy weather outside and circumstances caused by other people, as a knot under mat, is bad luck. I decided to believe that there are events that I cannot influence.

            It is sad, isn’t it? However, this belief brought me to a choice, that, as well as my family and friends, was supporting me during hard time of physical rehabilitation and retrieval to normal pupil’s life. In hospital, I faced two choices: to be depressed by the fact of bad luck or take it easy, and move forward doing my best with everything that depends on me to make my life better for now and the nearest future. What have I chosen? You can guess by my happy smile.

 

From “At Wellesley, a Furor Over Barbara Bush”; published: May 4, 1990 in The New York Times:

The conflict has centered on a protest by 150 Wellesley students who said: ”Wellesley teaches that we will be rewarded on the basis of our own merit, not on that of a spouse. To honor Barbara Bush as a commencement speaker is to honor a woman who has gained recognition through the achievements of her husband, which contravenes what we have been taught over the last four years at Wellesley.”

”Picking Barbara Bush isn’t going to help the problems of women, like growing poverty, homelessness or discrimination against minorities. All these things have increased under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and Barbara Bush is closely identified with them.”-                Alice Walker, the feminist who wrote ”The Color Purple.”

I decide to start my observation of the Barbara Bush speech from these statements to emphasize the difficulties that Barbara faced to, while she was giving speech at the Wallesley Collage. She had to overcome the attitude of students, who were taught that women should gain the recognition through its hard work and career achievements. She had to overcome the attitude of the feminists who argued that Barbara was no more than a sentimental celebrity, that could not solve the problems of “true” women.

However, Barbara Bushed said: “I Don’t Disagree”.

In her speech, she did not want to argue about the role of the women in the society, did not want to put claims about the ways to achieve recognitions. But what she wanted to do, was to remember to the students of the Wallesley College that in their life they should never forget about their own happiness.

Thinking about her speech, I want to describe Barbara and her main strategy as “wolf in sheep’s closing”.  In the beginning of the speech, she shows her excitement by the Wallesley Collage, its ideals and is spirit. She decided to use a “common ground” – positive attitude toward college itself- as a “battlefield” for her arguments. Moreover, Barbara picked up a “weapon” to protect her ideas, from the speech of the student president, in this case, she used the ideas of the “opposition” to defied the “opposition” attitude toward her ideas. ‘

Narrative about the girl and her role in the frames of the game rules metaphorically emphasize the importance of the view and ideals that are different from the “official” and “prebuild” ideas, wherever they are fit to scheme of things or not.

“Effort to learn about and respect difference, to be compassionate with one another, to cherish our own identity, and to accept unconditionally the same in others.” – here was an idea that made auditory at least listen to the Barbara Bush speech.
Barbara Bush showed for the students that there was time to find their own place in the life, find their own colors (no only a Purple One). Here she one more time used the authority of the opposite side to confirm her ideas – Find the joy in life, because as Ferris Bueller said on his day off, “Life moves pretty fast; and you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you’re going to miss it.” Another important role in the defending of her ideas was played by personal examples of Barbara Bush and Mrs. Gorbachev, however, they were not an examples of the successful women, but an example of happy women, that love her life and her family.

In terms of Stasis issue, Barbara was describing her ideals about the main role or purpose of the women in the 20^th century. Instead of defining only one role- women as wife, she also took to the account the businesswomen ideals, that helped her to stay on “common ground” with students. However, in Question of Value Barbara evaluate the “family” role as more important (both in terms of nature and consequences) than role of the “career”, especially in terms of women’ happiness and social obligation:

“At the end of your life, you will never regret* not having passed one more test, winning one more verdict, or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a child, a friend, or a parent.”

*This statement expresses the opinion that was taken for granted by Barbara, there is no actual argumentation.

“But as important as your obligations as a doctor, a lawyer, a business leader will be, you are a human being first.”

“Your success as a family, our success as a society, depends not on what happens in the White House, but on what happens inside your house.”

The last Stasis question that was answered by Barbara Bush was the question of Policy. In her speech she was framed by her listeners “common” attitude, however, by the idea of social identity and uniqueness of every member of the society, she overcame the “common” opinion and spoke “separately” with each student, asking him about his dreams and goals: “Are they right?”. In terms of Policy she argued that women (students) should find their way to happiness and in this case, according to the Barbara opinion, it’s achievable only through the social relationship as family.

Barbara Bush in her speech showed the incredible flexibility and high level of adaptation to the auditory, however, in her speech some of her ideas was taken for granted as only possible.

Dear Readers,

I have been in America for almost a half of the year. However, I am still enjoying investigating the culture of this country. In this case, in my passion blog I want to pay attention to the famous speeches that played important role in the history of the USA and its citizens. However, instead of simple overviewing or summarization of  the speeches’ texts, I would like to provide for you my rhetorical analysis of them.  I would organize it with usage of Stasis Questions ( Conjecture, Definition, Value, Cause and Policy),  Logos, Ethos and Pathos or Five rhetorical canons (Invention, Arrangement, Style, Delivery, Memory).  (Do not guarantee to use them all in the same time)

I hope you will enjoy my blog, and I am looking forward to your comments, because I want to make my analysis better.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
First Inaugural Address

Speech text

Overcoming the common pattern of selfishness and self-interests, overcoming the high public interest in wealth and easy money, Franklin D. Roosevelt choose the strategy to face the problem of economic crises by immediate actions and national sacrifice.
By a Scapegoating on the selfish economic activists (bankers and money exchangers) and besotted by their power politicians (both types of citizens were blamed for current economic state, because of their thirst for self-benefit), Roosevelt showed to the rest of the nation: “We are not like them, we are ready to work and fight scarifying our own wealth to the prosper of the nation”. Moreover, he organized his speech in terms of “full policy report”, he showed to the audience (common people) not only that he is ready for immediate actions and he had a plan, how to make situation better, but, what is more important, Roosevelt sacrificed his own high status of a President and became servant of the citizens. Servant who is asking for extra power and support of the nation to protect it and to become a commander of army of people, who are ready to fight for their future.
In this case, as a commander, Roosevelt, according to his strategy of governmental allocation of working place and lands, would have to overcome some of the constitutional principles, thus, he “was admired” by the simplicity and flexibility of constitution.
Anyway, interpreting this speech in terms of Stasis question, I could propose that Roosevelt, first of all, change the definition of poverty (job with low financial benefit for workers) from economic “disaster” of ordinary people to national sacrifice for a future success. In his speech, he proposed the system of reorganization of working place, but he patiently masked unsolved, at least for a while, issue of national poverty. If temporary poverty is a sacrifice for better future, than hard and honest, but low-cost job, was evaluated as something good by its nature and consequences, because it’s a part of this sacrifice, that would make our society prosper. Thus, as a conclusion, Roosevelt’s policy for hard, but “cheap” work of citizens under control of their commander and leader is credible, feasible and plausible.
To sum up, it was a good and, probably effective speech, that became an important part of national history. By redefining the poverty and by usage of some fallacies, Roosevelt was going to change people faith in the value of wealth and self-prosperity, and give them a new system of ideals and citizens duties in the dark times of economic crisis.