TO coincide with Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House, three Scottish academics took a look back to Barack Obama’s historic 2008 presidential campaign and examined how he used speech imagery and inclusive language to portray a vision of a hopeful and positive future which helped defeat his Republican opponent John McCain.
Their report states: “While a variety of explanations have been proposed for how Obama was able to win, including dissatisfaction with the leadership of President George W Bush and the impact of the financial crisis, the 2008 campaign might be best remembered for its inspiring speeches and striking use of speech imagery.”
Dr James Cunningham, lecturer in management at Robert Gordon University’s Aberdeen Business School; Dr David McGuire, a Reader in Human Resource Development at Edinburgh Napier University; and Professor Thomas N Garavan, a Research Professor at Edinburgh Napier University, have concluded in their published study that the simple use of the word “we” by Obama trumped – if you’ll pardon the phrase – McCain’s repeated “I” references.
AN EXAMPLE, PLEASE
OBAMA: “We need policies that grow our economy from the bottom up, so that every American, everywhere, has the chance to get ahead. Because if we’ve learned anything from this economic crisis, it’s that we’re all connected; we’re all in this together; and we will rise or fall as one nation – as one people.”
McCain: “As president, I will bring enormous talent from outside of Washington to shake up the government and get it working to promote economic growth and jobs for the American people. My team and I will take action to put an end to this economic crisis.”
The researchers concluded: “Both Obama and McCain embraced the concept of the American Dream (the ideal of equality of opportunity for all Americans) but each articulated the concept in a distinct way.
“Obama adopts the speech image of the American Dream as a collective aspiration to encourage inclusivity and togetherness, while John McCain uses the American Dream image as one of personal hope and opportunity in the belief that America enables individuals to transform their future prospects and develop their potential through hard work and self-belief.
“Through speeches delivered by the candidates, Obama uses ‘we’ in discussing the American dream to signal inclusivity and a desire to share the task whereas McCain uses ‘I’ to highlight actions that will be taken by him to restore the American Dream.”
BUT WEREN’T BOTH CANDIDATES AGAINST THE ‘SYSTEM’?
THE academics say that both McCain and Obama: “Worked hard to convince the American people of their ability to depart from the fractured political system of the past.
"Adopting the speech image of broken politics, they demonstrated empathy with the public in their speeches through highlighting emotions such as tiredness, brokenness and disappointment and the urgent need to bring about reform of the political system.”
This is where Obama really scored with his speech imagery: “It is time to turn the page on eight years of economic policies that put Wall Street before Main Street but ended up hurting both.”
McCain said: “The financial markets are in crisis. Times are tough. Enormous strain is being put on working families and individuals in America. I know that the events unfolding can be difficult to understand for many Americans.”
A slam dunk for Obama, you would have to say.
DID OBAMA’S ORATORY REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
THE report concludes: “The consistent use of inclusive language by Obama helped to generate a collective spirit-de-corps amongst his followers and articulate a set of values around unity, respect for difference and working together for a common future. Finally, the speech images used by Obama create a stronger emotional connection with and among followers than the more individualistic approach adopted by McCain.”
ANY LESSONS FOR THE NEW PREZ?
SAY what you like about his campaign, and he broke most moral and oratorical rules at one time or another, Trump definitely got his message across. What a pity it was a message of hate, not hope.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here