It’s late, I’ve had a long day, I have PT in 4 hours, and I feel like doing a classic this time – John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address from 1961. “Ask not what your country to do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. It doesn’t get much more Rhetorical than that. So lets break it down and check out why its really such an important piece of Rhetoric so I can go to bed so I can get a good grade in this class.
Quick! Watch this YouTube video of the speech so I don’t have to write the whole thing out for you!
And if you live in a third world country, Canada, or for whatever reason you have no idea how to use YouTube, check out this mp3 of the speech.
Alright, down to it. JFK is definitely in my top 5 list for favorite U.S. Presidents, but there’s always one thing that bothered me about him: his orating skills. WHAT?, JFK GAVE AWESOME SPEECHES! I know he did, relax. All of his speeches are written very well, but his delivery is evident of an era well before the age of teleprompters. Also, I’ve never been able to get over his thick Massachusetts accent. For god sakes he pronounces it Amewicah. Non the less, he doesn’t let this get in the way of pumping up the crowd.
While his orating skills might irk me, there’s no doubt that every one of his speeches was incredibly well written. Most speeches we get from politicians today are initiated with a strong opener, fluffed with fillers, and one-liners sprinkled in here, there, and at the end. JFK’s speeches are just chalk full of them. And not only are they full of good ones, they actually carry meaning. We’ve all heard it before “ask not what your country can do for you…”, “We choose to go the moon”, …”to assure the survival and success of Liberty”. The list goes on. And while we hear these statements over and over again, as we read them in our history books and upon the walls of monuments, we stop thinking about what they actually mean.
However, JFK’s delivery (per the build up in the writing, not his vocal tone), when we actually hear or watch the speech, brings us back in time. I thought of the threat of the Soviet Union, of nuclear fallout, the space race, and civil rights – and then thought to myself “what the heck CAN I do for my country?”. Of course, this question is also purely rhetorical, but if I thought it, and anyone else thought it, then he did his job. The message is there in your head to ponder about for the next 50 years.
One of the interesting analytical points of this speech is that there’s a special kind of pattern we see over again. The “What, can, not; what, can, do” pattern – most evident in the famous one liner that is titling this post. Some examples from the adress –
“the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
“We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom”
“Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”
and
“My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Over and over again this pattern presents itself – roughly every few paragraphs. Most likely, someone much smarter and much more knowledgable about Rhetoric and the art of speech giving than I probably wrote some ridiculously large paper on this small detail already – so this will be my 2:00 AM speculation. The writer of this speech wrote it almost as poetry. It has a flow to it. It rises and flattens. It gives the speech an older, classical feel. Which is possibly why we hold it in such high regard to this day.
If only more politicians gave speeches like this these days.
For being so late at night, your brief analysis of such a historical speech was rather efficient. I especially liked your side comments, asking the questions you imagine readers of your blog would be thinking. They added some humor that brought your post to life. Even more, the quotes you added to your post allowed me to better understand the patterns you were referencing. Honestly, I read your post before I watched the clip you inserted, but when I did watch the video, I had the same reaction as you, a sense of duty and commitment that rose within me to act on behalf of our country, as an American. Additionally, I also wish that modern politicians would take on a call to action speech, one that inserts pride in the individual and unites our country as one. Instead, we are handed the bickering party speeches that, at times, make my ears bleed.
I enjoyed reading your analysis of the writing of JFK’s speeches. Sometimes, political speeches are so focused on the character of the person making the speech, and their delivery that people glaze over the actual words that are being spoken. As you demonstrated, it is possible to dislike the delivery of a politician but still be able to appreciate the message that is being spoken. I think that is an important distinction to make. Although character development is important for politicians, I think that today they rely on that too much to pull them through speeches and campaigns. It reminds me of the Nixon vs. I can’t remember… debate that was on television for the first time ever. People that heard the debate on the radio felt that Nixon absolutely killed it but those that watched it on television thought he did horribly because he didn’t look good and he was sweating from nerves, which made him look untrustworthy. Consequently, I think that it’s important for people to really focus in on the words that are being said rather than the ‘look’ of the person giving the speech.