Rhetorical Analysis,

Although it can be argued that talk is power, I believe it is subordinate to knowledge. From a critical point of view, the war on Iraq could be seen as a text. A text is real because it is actively produced through discourses of power. The text can exist as ‘true’ according to discourse, and isn’t merely something that happened, it’s given a meaning in line with a grand narrative. It is framed. John Howard’s speech to the NPC in March 2003 is a good example of this. In it, he sets out to present himself as a leading authority, not only in Australia, but also in international politics. This analysis will use the RPS model to evaluate Howard’s effectiveness as leader based on that speech. 1. Simons’ requirements, problems and strategies model is a simple and yet effective way of creating and analyzing speeches. Shortly, requirements are the demands of the particular presentation; what the audience requires of the speaker in this situation. The requirements define the rhetorical goals of the speech. Requirements -To establish himself as a leader that is aware of national interests, but also to show he could proactively handle international issues as well. -He had to justify the commitment to the Alliance, and also the actions that consequently followed. -To reach an Australian audience, but additionally to be communicating Australia’s interests to an international audience. -As Howard was talking to an audience of experts, he had to establish himself as an educated leader to an educated audience. The problems outlined are what Howard had to overcome to achieve the predetermined rhetorical goals. In short they were:

• • • •

To establish his authority to speak and act as competent prime minister. To show that he was aware of, and representing Australian interests even if ties with US were strong. Managing public fear of the consequences of the situation he was committing Australia to. To ascertain and remind both supporters and opposition (both domestic and international) that liberal democracy is the enlightened, peaceful option.

•

Lastly, Howard had to persuade experts in the audience to support his policies. 2. Strategies focuses on the techniques Howard used to meet his rhetorical goals. This process is a balancing act, trying to utilize often conflicting requirements.

•

Purpose: inform and convince members of the NPC and the broader Australian public of -the case against Iraq -Howard’s credibility as a domestic and international leader.

•

Central idea: liberal democracies in the western world must go forward as a strong example in order for ’weaker’ or ‘immature’ countries to follow.

•

Main arguments: -That Iraq must be disarmed peacefully or by force, or else other rogue states will think that the Alliance is weak -Opposition towards disarming Iraq is irrational when looking at the country’s track record -Because critics of the alliance have flawed arguments, this will act as fuel on the fire for terrorists. -Armed assault is bad, but the alternative is worse.

• •

Theme: In order to develop a peaceful world, totalitarian states must not be allowed to arm with weapons of mass destruction; if the western world does not stand firm, this will act as invitation to more violence and further threat to peace.

Audience: The National Press Club. Broken down, the members most likely consisted of representatives from the country’s media institutions, commentators and others. As this analysis is limited due to that the only information being textual, other strategies that Howard might have utilized could be: -The use of language to support rhetorical objectives, e.g. quotes, stories etc. -Appearance, voice use and body language. 3. In order to present himself as a relevant authority and the case against Iraq, Howard had to first build his credibility and then convince his audience with logical arguments. Ethos (credibility) In order for Howard to communicate effectively, he had to establish a connection with the audience built on relation. The relational aspects provide meaning to the content, and highly relational messages are seen as more influential on receivers. He did this by establishing honesty, competence and charisma. • Honesty In short, beginning his speech by admitting that the issue is “challenging, difficult and perplexing” for him can be seen as honest. Understanding that some Australians disagree strongly with him is also a sign of honesty, but he also explicitly states “let’s be honest” later in the speech. Logos (logic) This is where Howard has chosen to focus his efforts. Knowing that he faced considerable opposition from Latham, he had to develop strong, logical arguments that would be hard to refute. He instead endeavors to establish his image as the laudable head, ruling out any attempt to be similar to an “Everyman (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland).” • Competence To demonstrate his competence, he describes and analyses the international situation, and considering that the audience consists of informed members of the press, this is beneficial for him. His logical arguments are good and strong, but there are few para-interpersonal and relational messages to connect with his audience. A contrast would be Bill Clinton, who is known to effectively create an instant connection. • Charisma On the other hand, Howard severely lacks charismatic qualities like empathy, energy, openness etc. As mentioned, the focus on image and logos could explain this. Conclusion Does he meet requirements? It is proven that political advertising is very effective in promoting an image, because emphasizing certain issues shows people what you believe in rather than telling them. Howard has long been fond of this approach, and it is one of his main political strengths. The requirements allude to a larger requisite; to establish himself as strong player in international politics. Siding up alongside the US obviously strengthens this position. All of his arguments are framed in order to reinforce his image as a competent leader: parallel alienation; juxtaposing the few opposing countries in UN with minority in Australia, using the issue to draw Australia into an international context, and to emphasize Australia’s part in the alliance. This is a confident method of pushing the issue to the limit and establishing relational distinctions. Does he meet problems?

Howard quite neatly manages public fear, knowing that eliminating it will distance him from his audience. He links Iraq to Al-Qaida to North Korea to the Middle East and blames socialism in the end. Did he succeed in his purpose? It is difficult to say if this particular speech was the determining cause of gaining public support for war in Iraq, but the arguments and the image Howard projected were overall consistent. His biggest weakness however, is his total lack of any real charisma and it could also be argued that framing the issue in such an un-nuanced way (the west – good, the rest – bad) could backlash on him.