In the context of this analysis, enthymeme is analyzed in the speeches of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama with the intention of demonstrating how each president constructs enthymemes based upon assumptions that he has...
moreIn the context of this analysis, enthymeme is analyzed in the speeches of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama with the intention of demonstrating how each president constructs enthymemes based upon assumptions that he has about the American people in order to create arguments tailored for specific target audiences. Additionally, each president"s speech is analyzed to demonstrate how the various syllogisms lead to one overarching conclusion within the speech, despite the target audience. Enthymemes are drawn from speeches regarding Bush"s plan to reform Social Security and Obama"s plan to reform health care. All of these factors lead to the final conclusion that despite the fact that each president is arguing for a different legislative change to unique audiences who have different concerns about the proposed legislation. Ultimately, both presidents construct enthymemes according to audience demographics and their assumptions regarding the American people as a whole. In the field of presidential rhetoric, this analysis provides a unique perspective regarding how arguments can be analyzed through the identification and application of enthymeme. It adds to the existing scholarship as enthymeme has yet to be applied to presidential speeches with the same level of specificity that it is used in this analysis. Additionally, this analysis examines the rhetoric of presidents who have not yet been studied at great length in terms of their use of specific rhetorical devices. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend a special thanks to my parents, brother, husband, and grandmother for their continued support and patience. This project would have been incredibly difficult without their words of encouragement, constant reminders that I would not be writing this forever, and their enthusiasm as I progressed throughout this venture. Even if I didn"t always believe in myself, they never stopped. Additionally, I would like to thank my friends for their support. I would also like to thank all of my committee members for all of their guidance, assistance, and patience throughout this endeavor. Major Premise: All Americans should have health insurance. Obama appears to make this argument based on the assumption that people should have access to health insurance. This assumption is addressed again in the speech when Obama states: Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover. ("Remarks to Joint Session" par. 6) This statement includes numerous reasons why individuals deserve access to health care. It addresses the consequences of not having health insurance, such as bankruptcy resulting from a serious illness. All of these arguments lead to the conclusion since insurance will not be available to all Americans until reform is passed, and these issues will continue to affect the lives of millions of Americans. The intended audience for this argument is fairly clear as he explicitly states who he is addressing in his minor premise: people who do not currently have insurance. However, like the previous discussion regarding arguments aimed at the uninsured, this one also addresses issues that a general audience can relate to, even if the topics themselves do not directly apply to their lives. This is one of the key differences between arguments made to the insured versus the uninsured. The arguments aimed at the insured are topic specific and deal with reform in terms of how it will affect people"s existing policies. Arguments to the uninsured are