By now, you've probably seen the moving and (I assume) influential video by the Black-Eyed Peas' Will.i.am "Yes We Can" video in support of Barack Obama, which sets Obama's New Hampshire primary speech to a stripped-down tune, the words voiced by a coterie of A- and B-list celebrities:
While some might argue that seeing/hearing Scarlett Johannson sing Obama's words might dilute their power, the video certainly helped determine where my vote, once belonging to John Edwards, would go. I had not previously heard Obama's speech, and hearing his indirect (yet rhetorically powerful) reference to Martin Luther King, Jr., sung by John Legend certainly caught my attention.
Equally interesting is the "spoof" video (one among many, I am sure), which adopts many of the same techniques, casting "real" people in the celebrities' roles and portraying their dismay at John McCain's pro-war rhetoric. The producers, "Election 08," claim that "earnest people reacting to a candidate is the future of music video":
I have to come out of the closet (not for the first time in my life) and fess up to the fact that I do not find this Obama video moving. Never having been one of the cool kids, I may not be part of the target audience of this piece. But to me, it just repeatedly (as in over and over and over again) calls attention to the thing I find most worrisome about Obama's candidacy: namely, I wish I new what the object of that "can" was: "Yes we can!"...what, exactly? It's still not clear to me. I'm also wary of the kinds of appeals on which it explicitly relies. In another context I have written about why this is: it reminds me of nothing so much as the "will you accept the call" missions videos I used to be shown at church camp. Simple acoustic guitar...chanting and repetition...mournful piano solos... I realize this has something uniquely to do with my background, but: it kind of creeps me out...
(And I will add that I *do* find it really catchy; I just really dislike it as a piece of persuasion aimed at influencing my politics: in fact, precisely because I find it manipulative rather than persuasive.)
Here is the text of Obama's speech on New Hampshire primary day:
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.
We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --
Yes. We. Can.
I think he's basically saying, "Yes we can change our country." His whole platform is based on hope and the possibility to change the status quo. Hope this helps.
Well, not exactly, but thanks to you and Erin for providing some additional context, and for responding to the question I raised. I actually remember watching the speech when he made it and having the same question about "yes we can."
But my original post also intended to call attention to some of the rhetorical strategies of the video (not to mention the speech itself) that I think are a bit fishy. I think this is worth calling attention to because Obama is regarded as a great orator (not to mention the fact that we are students of rhetoric ourselves). His ability to deliver a speech is pretty much unparalleled among our current leaders (and after 8 years of the grating verbal ineptitude of our current Prez, I understand why Obama's ability to give such great speeches is so refreshing).
But, in my 309 classes, I spent a lot of time on the connections between rhetoric and ethics. There's no question that Obama is an effective communicator: we know his message is persuasive because lots and lots of people have been persuaded by it. But there's a way in which I do find it a little bit unethical (or, as I put it before, manipulative).
If we do a little rhetorical analysis on the speech, what do we see? Well, for about the first third, properly speaking the refrain should be "Yes they did!," because he's talking about stuff other people did (like "pushing westward"--and isn't anyone bothered by the people who get left out of his story about America? Like Native Americans? Not to mention those GLBTQ Americans who kicked some ass at Stonewall and also said "Yes We Can." He usually tends to leave out the most recent front in the civil rights struggle, but, after all, this speech was given in prime time). But OK, we're Americans, we like typology, and it's perfectly valid to use paradigms to get people's attention.
Then he frames his argument a little differently, saying "yes we can" to justice, equality, opportunity, prosperity, healing this nation, and repairing this world. Well, hey, I like all those things, in fact I don't personally know anyone who doesn't. And it's hard to imagine a political speaker who wouldn't vaunt them in a speech. But now I myself am starting to sound a little suspect because I'm criticizing the speech. If I take issue with what he is saying here, does that mean I'm NOT in favor of justice and equality?
This problem will only get worse for me as I listen to the rest of the speech, because now I'm hearing about "the battle ahead," "obstacles that stand in our way," and a "chorus of cynics." Uh-oh. Here, we are implicitly asked to choose between being a part of the "chorus of cynics" on the one hand or Obama's "one America" on the other. Any criticism of Obama, no matter how valid, can now be reframed as cynicism, as an obstacle to change, as anti-Hope. To me, it registers as a fairly nakedly presented ingroup/outgroup device: either you get it, or you don't; you're one of us, or you aren't. Obviously that kind of strategy is rhetorically effective (witness the video itself, a fairly pure distillation of what's cool about this particular ingroup: it includes celebrities!), but in my opinion, it's ethically suspect. I find it especially strange for a man whose hallmark is supposed to be bringing people together. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you a "cynic" doesn't seem like the best way to start that process. (And, to me, it echoes the exclusions that marked the first part of the speech.)
And can you imagine the key line of the speech, "But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope," being uttered by any other politician (for example, Mitt Romney) and not sounding like an utter platitude?
PS: The point of my posts is not to try and change anyone's mind about whom they vote for (I suspect this is not the place for that). And I certainly think there are other reasons to support Obama--which is precisely what I find interesting about the emphasis placed on his ability to "inspire"/persuade people. To me, it's the least appealing attribute of his candidacy. Except, of course, for the fact that it makes him electable. But if one accepts the premise of my argument, and votes for him anyway because he'll win--well I understand that, but I don't quite understand why that's such an exciting prospect.
**For a summary of an alternate (mostly favorable) rhetorical analysis of Obama's '04 DNC speech, click here. (Shafer recaps an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8.4 [Winter 2005], 571-593; full text available through Project Muse.)
I think we'd all do well to remember that one speech does not a Presidential campaign make (or break, excepting Howard Dean's "yeaaaggghhhhh!!").
That's the beauty of rhetoric, especially political rhetoric. I'm fascinated by the little massages and omissions and tweaks that either ignite or defuse a campaign. I think that the video is rhetorically brilliant because it enacts these little massages and tweaks outside the scope of the politician's own speechwriters and staffers (and it was then adopted by said politician as a talisman/mantra). From what I understand, Will.i.am did this independent of Obama's campaign, and then Obama embraced it.
You're right to criticize the speech and the ethics of the video. But "Yes We Can" is not the platform, it's the slogan. It's up to the individual voter to look beyond the rhetoric and look at the actual positions/voting records/etc. of the candidate before casting one's vote.
Well, to an extent I do agree with you (I certainly don't think Dean's outburst was representative of his candidacy, and I do think that his ensuing treatment by the media was unfair). But, to put all my cards on the table, I do not think it is unfair to take this speech (not to mention the video it spawned, which the campaign did not create but from which it has not distanced itself) as representative of what I take to be a central component of Obama's appeal and his candidacy: his rhetorical prowess and his ability to inspire people and bring them together. And I don't think doing so means focusing on the slogan over the substance: in this case, the form of the message itself, and the candidate's ability to bring the message well, are foregrounded as substantive reasons to support him (as important, if not more important, than his policy positions). For what it's worth, in principle I'm not opposed to such a sell--it's just that in this case I'm not particularly convinced by it.
It's also starting to feel rather lonely over here, casting my cold, Hope-disparaging eye Obama's way. They always told me I had an old soul; this clinches it. But I'm not totally alone in blogland: Opinionator The Caucus Trailhead XX Factor Wonkette
Submitted by Jillian Sayre on Sat, 2008-02-16 12:53.
Wow. What a conversation. I just wanted to speak to the persuasion/manipulation debacle here and note that this was the focus of my introductory rhetoric class because the boundary is slippery between the two. I have to say that I totally disagree with Tim in that the rhetoric of the speech (and most of his speeches) exemplifies basic rhetorical principles of persuasion, not manipulation, but only because it rightly aims to convince you of something (i.e. to join the campaign) and that this persuasive intent is at heart manipulative - I want to CHANGE you or your mind when I talk about change - and so the effective ends are to gain control over and MOVE you.
At the heart of his statements is the creation of an in-group and an out-group, fundamental to establishing ethos in its benevolence and pathos in its indication of values. For this the very reasons Tim signals the piece as suspicious just make it an amazing piece of rhetoric for me. The process of identification (both personal and communal) that accompanies the act of assent (Yes) and participation (WE can) is part and parcel of Obama's rhetorical success. Of course the attendant feelings of alienation created by OMISSION is the other half of that (I particularly appreciated Tim's mention of the history that does NOT make the speech). No one else in this campaign has so successfully elided the difference between I and We, whether it be I (Obama) or I (Tim, Jillian, etc.). Even more than this video (which I agree is problematic if for no other reason that "yes we can" depends on an idea of celebrity that is exclusive instead of inclusive) his "We are the ones we've been waiting for refrain" affected (and thus manipulated) my thoughts about the election.
Briefly: I appreciate your point that the distinction between persuasion and manipulation is slippery. But I think it's helpful to maintain, however fictional, a distinction between ethically legitimate and ethically illegitimate means of persuasion (and this is what I try to get at in my teaching when I distinguish between between persuasion and manipulation). In my opinion, just because persuasion works to "change" something doesn't mean it's inherently manipulative, a word that, for me, has negative connotations. It's "how" change is brought about, as well as why, that I emphasize. In my analysis, I find Obama's rhetorical strategies ethically inadequate or illegitimate--disingenuous at worst and self-contradictory at best.
And I think it's worth pointing out that you relegate one of my central points, about excluded histories, which is one of the strongest reasons I personally feel alienated, to a passing aside in parentheses. (Although actually, so do I, so no fault there.) It's certainly a mark of the success of Obama's rhetoric, and his deployment of the ingroup/outgroup strategy, that you can do that. "Oh, sure, he leaves stuff out, but still...." It's the "but still" that (rather unapologetically) I think deserves more critical attention. And by no means do I mean that this attention means not voting for Obama. (I sometimes get the feeling, though not from you, Jillian, that many Obama supporters cannot conceive that one might both want to vote for him and criticize him...)
To take Tim's comment literally, here is a link to the lyrics of the song. What stands out for me about this video is how it embodies the message it wants to present through its use of so many (celebrity) people. More specifically, Obama's assertion that "we will remember that there is something happening in America/that we are not as divided as our politics suggests/that we are one people/we are one nation."
Comments
I have to come out of the
I have to come out of the closet (not for the first time in my life) and fess up to the fact that I do not find this Obama video moving. Never having been one of the cool kids, I may not be part of the target audience of this piece. But to me, it just repeatedly (as in over and over and over again) calls attention to the thing I find most worrisome about Obama's candidacy: namely, I wish I new what the object of that "can" was: "Yes we can!"...what, exactly? It's still not clear to me. I'm also wary of the kinds of appeals on which it explicitly relies. In another context I have written about why this is: it reminds me of nothing so much as the "will you accept the call" missions videos I used to be shown at church camp. Simple acoustic guitar...chanting and repetition...mournful piano solos... I realize this has something uniquely to do with my background, but: it kind of creeps me out...
(And I will add that I *do* find it really catchy; I just really dislike it as a piece of persuasion aimed at influencing my politics: in fact, precisely because I find it manipulative rather than persuasive.)
Some more context
Here is the text of Obama's speech on New Hampshire primary day:
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.
We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --
Yes. We. Can.
I think he's basically saying, "Yes we can change our country." His whole platform is based on hope and the possibility to change the status quo. Hope this helps.
Well, not exactly, but
Well, not exactly, but thanks to you and Erin for providing some additional context, and for responding to the question I raised. I actually remember watching the speech when he made it and having the same question about "yes we can."
But my original post also intended to call attention to some of the rhetorical strategies of the video (not to mention the speech itself) that I think are a bit fishy. I think this is worth calling attention to because Obama is regarded as a great orator (not to mention the fact that we are students of rhetoric ourselves). His ability to deliver a speech is pretty much unparalleled among our current leaders (and after 8 years of the grating verbal ineptitude of our current Prez, I understand why Obama's ability to give such great speeches is so refreshing).
But, in my 309 classes, I spent a lot of time on the connections between rhetoric and ethics. There's no question that Obama is an effective communicator: we know his message is persuasive because lots and lots of people have been persuaded by it. But there's a way in which I do find it a little bit unethical (or, as I put it before, manipulative).
If we do a little rhetorical analysis on the speech, what do we see? Well, for about the first third, properly speaking the refrain should be "Yes they did!," because he's talking about stuff other people did (like "pushing westward"--and isn't anyone bothered by the people who get left out of his story about America? Like Native Americans? Not to mention those GLBTQ Americans who kicked some ass at Stonewall and also said "Yes We Can." He usually tends to leave out the most recent front in the civil rights struggle, but, after all, this speech was given in prime time). But OK, we're Americans, we like typology, and it's perfectly valid to use paradigms to get people's attention.
Then he frames his argument a little differently, saying "yes we can" to justice, equality, opportunity, prosperity, healing this nation, and repairing this world. Well, hey, I like all those things, in fact I don't personally know anyone who doesn't. And it's hard to imagine a political speaker who wouldn't vaunt them in a speech. But now I myself am starting to sound a little suspect because I'm criticizing the speech. If I take issue with what he is saying here, does that mean I'm NOT in favor of justice and equality?
This problem will only get worse for me as I listen to the rest of the speech, because now I'm hearing about "the battle ahead," "obstacles that stand in our way," and a "chorus of cynics." Uh-oh. Here, we are implicitly asked to choose between being a part of the "chorus of cynics" on the one hand or Obama's "one America" on the other. Any criticism of Obama, no matter how valid, can now be reframed as cynicism, as an obstacle to change, as anti-Hope. To me, it registers as a fairly nakedly presented ingroup/outgroup device: either you get it, or you don't; you're one of us, or you aren't. Obviously that kind of strategy is rhetorically effective (witness the video itself, a fairly pure distillation of what's cool about this particular ingroup: it includes celebrities!), but in my opinion, it's ethically suspect. I find it especially strange for a man whose hallmark is supposed to be bringing people together. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you a "cynic" doesn't seem like the best way to start that process. (And, to me, it echoes the exclusions that marked the first part of the speech.)
And can you imagine the key line of the speech, "But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope," being uttered by any other politician (for example, Mitt Romney) and not sounding like an utter platitude?
PS: The point of my posts is not to try and change anyone's mind about whom they vote for (I suspect this is not the place for that). And I certainly think there are other reasons to support Obama--which is precisely what I find interesting about the emphasis placed on his ability to "inspire"/persuade people. To me, it's the least appealing attribute of his candidacy. Except, of course, for the fact that it makes him electable. But if one accepts the premise of my argument, and votes for him anyway because he'll win--well I understand that, but I don't quite understand why that's such an exciting prospect.
**For a summary of an alternate (mostly favorable) rhetorical analysis of Obama's '04 DNC speech, click here. (Shafer recaps an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8.4 [Winter 2005], 571-593; full text available through Project Muse.)
I think we'd all do well to
I think we'd all do well to remember that one speech does not a Presidential campaign make (or break, excepting Howard Dean's "yeaaaggghhhhh!!").
That's the beauty of rhetoric, especially political rhetoric. I'm fascinated by the little massages and omissions and tweaks that either ignite or defuse a campaign. I think that the video is rhetorically brilliant because it enacts these little massages and tweaks outside the scope of the politician's own speechwriters and staffers (and it was then adopted by said politician as a talisman/mantra). From what I understand, Will.i.am did this independent of Obama's campaign, and then Obama embraced it.
You're right to criticize the speech and the ethics of the video. But "Yes We Can" is not the platform, it's the slogan. It's up to the individual voter to look beyond the rhetoric and look at the actual positions/voting records/etc. of the candidate before casting one's vote.
Well, to an extent I do
Well, to an extent I do agree with you (I certainly don't think Dean's outburst was representative of his candidacy, and I do think that his ensuing treatment by the media was unfair). But, to put all my cards on the table, I do not think it is unfair to take this speech (not to mention the video it spawned, which the campaign did not create but from which it has not distanced itself) as representative of what I take to be a central component of Obama's appeal and his candidacy: his rhetorical prowess and his ability to inspire people and bring them together. And I don't think doing so means focusing on the slogan over the substance: in this case, the form of the message itself, and the candidate's ability to bring the message well, are foregrounded as substantive reasons to support him (as important, if not more important, than his policy positions). For what it's worth, in principle I'm not opposed to such a sell--it's just that in this case I'm not particularly convinced by it.
It's also starting to feel rather lonely over here, casting my cold, Hope-disparaging eye Obama's way. They always told me I had an old soul; this clinches it. But I'm not totally alone in blogland:
Opinionator
The Caucus
Trailhead
XX Factor
Wonkette
But then there's this, which is just...so bad:
Inside/Outside
Wow. What a conversation. I just wanted to speak to the persuasion/manipulation debacle here and note that this was the focus of my introductory rhetoric class because the boundary is slippery between the two. I have to say that I totally disagree with Tim in that the rhetoric of the speech (and most of his speeches) exemplifies basic rhetorical principles of persuasion, not manipulation, but only because it rightly aims to convince you of something (i.e. to join the campaign) and that this persuasive intent is at heart manipulative - I want to CHANGE you or your mind when I talk about change - and so the effective ends are to gain control over and MOVE you.
At the heart of his statements is the creation of an in-group and an out-group, fundamental to establishing ethos in its benevolence and pathos in its indication of values. For this the very reasons Tim signals the piece as suspicious just make it an amazing piece of rhetoric for me. The process of identification (both personal and communal) that accompanies the act of assent (Yes) and participation (WE can) is part and parcel of Obama's rhetorical success. Of course the attendant feelings of alienation created by OMISSION is the other half of that (I particularly appreciated Tim's mention of the history that does NOT make the speech). No one else in this campaign has so successfully elided the difference between I and We, whether it be I (Obama) or I (Tim, Jillian, etc.). Even more than this video (which I agree is problematic if for no other reason that "yes we can" depends on an idea of celebrity that is exclusive instead of inclusive) his "We are the ones we've been waiting for refrain" affected (and thus manipulated) my thoughts about the election.
Briefly: I appreciate your
Briefly: I appreciate your point that the distinction between persuasion and manipulation is slippery. But I think it's helpful to maintain, however fictional, a distinction between ethically legitimate and ethically illegitimate means of persuasion (and this is what I try to get at in my teaching when I distinguish between between persuasion and manipulation). In my opinion, just because persuasion works to "change" something doesn't mean it's inherently manipulative, a word that, for me, has negative connotations. It's "how" change is brought about, as well as why, that I emphasize. In my analysis, I find Obama's rhetorical strategies ethically inadequate or illegitimate--disingenuous at worst and self-contradictory at best.
And I think it's worth pointing out that you relegate one of my central points, about excluded histories, which is one of the strongest reasons I personally feel alienated, to a passing aside in parentheses. (Although actually, so do I, so no fault there.) It's certainly a mark of the success of Obama's rhetoric, and his deployment of the ingroup/outgroup strategy, that you can do that. "Oh, sure, he leaves stuff out, but still...." It's the "but still" that (rather unapologetically) I think deserves more critical attention. And by no means do I mean that this attention means not voting for Obama. (I sometimes get the feeling, though not from you, Jillian, that many Obama supporters cannot conceive that one might both want to vote for him and criticize him...)
To take Tim's comment
To take Tim's comment literally, here is a link to the lyrics of the song. What stands out for me about this video is how it embodies the message it wants to present through its use of so many (celebrity) people. More specifically, Obama's assertion that "we will remember that there is something happening in America/that we are not as divided as our politics suggests/that we are one people/we are one nation."