On the heels of her defeat in the general election, the logos of the United States is seen in a new light. She had built her campaign on a particular vision of America, and her loss is not only personal – defeated as well was this vision she shared with her supporters and her voters.
It then becomes necessary to re-examine the accepted logos of the United States, as determined by the popular vote and the electoral college decision. In order for logos to be intrinsically true, it must be accepted by the group to which it pertains. What has been seen, in the wake of this election, is that Hillary Clinton’s vision of America, the one that she built and shared through her speeches and interviews, had been resoundingly rejected by the electoral vote of 298-220 electoral votes. This, however, does not tell the whole story. In the popular vote, 668,483 more votes were cast for Hillary Clinton than were for Donald Trump. On the individual level, Hillary’s rhetoric, her logos, has received a fairly significant edge. Does Hillary’s logos, as a rhetor herself, survive in the midst of a lost election?
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the office of President of the United States was beset by attacks from all sides; from the expected conservative right all the way across the spectrum to the extreme left (chiefly the supporters of Bernie Sanders). Despite this, Clinton’s main logical appeals remain consistent, prevalent, and above all, resonant. What is most interesting about viewing her campaign from her acceptance of the nomination at the DNC all the way to her concession speech following the election is that the strength of her campaign and her claim to candidacy were rarely questioned; most of the inquiry was leveled at her ability to make better rhetorical appeals to a wider audience, thereby expanding the power of her logos.
One of Hillary’s biggest setbacks as a candidate was her connections to what became commonly known as “the establishment.” She had ties to Wall Street and was, at that point, a career politician. Voters on both sides of the spectrum voices frustration with the political climate, turning away from Clinton towards Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as outsiders who would “shake up” the current system. She dealt with labels from “evil queen” to “warrior woman” to “pioneer” (petscortnyc), with some obviously more flattering than others. This labeling was not limited to the Hillary that was seen on the campaign trail, but also dug up from here college days at Wellesley, where her cunning and deft political maneuvering made her an early face of student activism (clogan10). Even in her early twenties, Clinton had the reputation of having strong logical appeals, despite the very different forums.
Jumping forward a bit, Hillary makes a splash on the scene with a speech in September of 1995 at the fourth UN World Conference on Women. Her words were not her only tool here, as Clinton showed herself to be a tactful visual rhetor as well as an articulate speaker, with her outfit offering a bevy of interpretations, down to each individual hue:
In her speech in Beijing she wears light pink–a color associated with charm, politeness, sensitivity, tenderness, and femininity. Twenty years later, Hillary is still wearing suits — but now she wears bolder more energetic and lively colors — a virtual pantsuit rainbow– Red symbolizing strength and passion; yellow suggesting optimism and cheer; green for vitality, wealth, prestige; blue being communicative, trustworthy, calming; orange reflecting freshness, youthfulness and creativity; white putting forth purity and simplicity; brown/tan to depict her as organic, wholesome, simple, and honest. (buffington36)
Her visual rhetoric, as seen here, does not betray her intentions or her message. If she cannot be the broad-shouldered male politician that American voters are accustomed to seeing, she uses other tools, specifically her dress, to inform her logical appeals.
Seeing Hillary as one of these archetypes (whichever one best suited whichever pundit at whichever time) in 2016 as well as in the late 1960s, those following the election had a sense of the consistency Clinton brought to this election cycle.
For whatever reason, this was not enough. Her ethos as a rhetor was constantly under fire over scandals that seemed minor in comparison to the claims and actions of her opponent. Once again, it is not her logos that is under fire – as seen in Christina Yim’s post where she writes “logos appears to be the one rhetorical tool HRC has mastered; at times, she effectively invokes pathos, as in her DNC speech, but ethos is the area where she apparently misses the ball with most voters.” (yimchristina) Her logical appeals, here and elsewhere, are viewed as above reproach. If not for delivery what has been characterized as unnatural, it seems that Clinton would have run away with the whole thing. It’s unfortunate, though, that this supposed untrustworthiness became a valuable weapon for her opponents, and somewhat derailed her campaign (or, more likely, provided the last nail in an already shut coffin in the minds of voters already 99% sure they would cast their ballot for the Trump/Pence slate).
The media’ approach to Hillary’s logos is also worth studying, as the media is the source through which American voters attain information regarding the candidates up for election. As Professor Wendy Hayden quotes, women must “speak softly and carry a big statistic” (to play on Teddy Roosevelt’s famous axiom) because this is the sort of logical appeal women in politics have at their disposal (professorhayden 1). Without being able to convey a physically demanding type of visual rhetoric (at least without being castigated for sacrificing their femininity), logical appeals tend to be their most effective rhetorical weapons.
The media, of course, is an entity made of up many individuals and outlets with wildly varying agendas. One such writer, having vociferously penned anti-Clinton pieces, came around to her platforms and her candidacy, urging others to take a closer look at what was happening. Her logos had reached this writer, and in doing so showed the power of this particular rhetorical appeal (hweinberg707).
Some of the conversation in the media was twofold, with satirical pieces poking fun at her weaknesses to (perhaps) highlight her strengths. It was noted that humor, in this instance, can work as a logical appeal as satire allows for a more honest approach to the material – its criticism is unbound, and therefore credible. (akreichman, hweinberg707 2).
This is seen most clearly in her DNC sppech, where she accepted the nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Sarah Parente writes:
The arguments that Clinton makes are premised in the values and beliefs that these voters hold. I believe she views a value charged connection as the first step to coming to an understanding on policy. She wants to show voters that she has the same ultimate goals as voters, just a different way of accomplishing them. Sanders supporters specifically agree on a lot of the same things as the Clinton candidacy, the difference is in how they hope to accomplish the goals, and to what extent. For the voters to trust Clinton, and believe her heart is in the right place, is half the battle (sarahparente).
It is worth noting in Sarah’s dissemination of Clinton’s speech that Hillary is able to expand her logos to incorporate newly disenfranchised Sanders supporters who are still unsure if they can vote for the candidate they so vehemently opposed in the primaries. These same logical appeals were reflected in her concession speech, indicating that the logos was still alive and that a defeat in the general election at the hands of the electoral college would not determine the logos going forward (professorhayden 2). Her campaign slogan “Stronger Together,” was also brought up in these speech and reaffirmed by President Obama in his response to the results:
Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don’t just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things; the rule of law, the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too and we must defend them. (professorhayden 3).
Her word choice is often under intense scrutiny, as is any candidate running for public office. Pundits in 2016 were reaching back twenty years to nitpick her neologism “superpredators,” (jameswheat) which referred more towards cartel leaders than it did African-American youth, but that hardly matters having it so far removed from its context that many following conservative news outlets will not bother to check the context. In this way, her opponents used her logical appeals to undermine her ethos, fabricating another attack that may have worked against her in the general election.
Her logical appeal was mostly colorblind – she did not try to be the candidate for a particular group; instead posting a future where all groups were accepted and that was the “normal America” By being this for-everyone candidate, Clinton echoes the logical appeals of a previous female candidate, one Shirley Chisholm who deemed herself “unbought and unbossed,” as per her campaign slogan. (pmurphy54, professorhayden 4) The logical appeal here is that these candidates will do what is right for the people as a whole, without influence from certain groups to favor one over another. This recalls Sarah Parente’s post above, in which the logos she built encompassed many groups.
What remains, as always, are more questions. In the wake of the decision in the general election, who decides the logos? If the popular vote calls for Clinton, and the new administration has a different set of beliefs, what is the limit of logos? Can Trump claim to appeal to logos if it is shared by a minority? How can the logos of a defeated candidate remain if the candidate fades from public view? What does it mean for the power of logos if it can be overturned by a system such as the electoral college?
Hello pmurphy54! I enjoyed reading your piece on logos. I think it is very detailed and well-told, with proper analyzation of each source. I am especially pleased with your connections of logos to media and how they affect one another. You have built up a lot information around logos and has greatly inspired me to add onto my own final project.
For your final project, I think addressing your final questions would be appropriate. Perhaps addressing the limits of logo would be a great focus, though I am unsure of how that would fit into a format of your preference.
Your discussion on logical appeal has inspired me to expand on the topic on my final project. Word choice is a subject that interests me and I may consider touching upon it in my own work.
I think a good place to look would be sarahparente’s “HRC and a Hierarchy of Values.” You both discuss the faults of politicians regarding their rhetorical appeals and how it could change politics during the upcoming weeks. Also, you both touch upon values and beliefs between Hillary and her audience.
LikeLike
Pmurphy54: Assuming you’re planning on constructing a lesson or unit from this synthesis paper, I think you’ve got a strong basis for teaching about the relationship between audience and rhetoric. Your focus is on the successes and failures of the logos in Clinton’s rhetorical campaign, which reveals important implications for her loss and her opponent’s win.
For your final project, I think it would be fascinating to explore the ways in which different audiences dictate different logical appeals; students can explore what is an appropriate appeal based on specific criteria. I think a big question to explore with students might be the following: who is the audience and what about their makeup influences a rhetorical strategy?
I myself plan to consider a similar concept in the form of a lesson. Through a debate format, students will need to consider their audience to construct a persuasive argument. Your post is inspiring me to invite students to explore the implications of audience, when and why it is important to make adjustments, and more importantly, how to fill in the gaps.
I would look at Rasha Reda’s synthesis post, “The Ethos Gap,” in conjunction with your lesson on logos. Often times, when logos does not serve to persuade an audience, or when there is an unknown element, ethos can fill in the gaps. Students can explore their own agency and credibility to establish trust with an otherwise unfamiliar or intangible audience (or even better, an established audience).
Hope this helps! Great post with ideas that I will definitely incorporate into my own final project.
LikeLike
Hi pmurphy54! I really enjoyed reading your synthesis post. We both covered the logos tag, so seeing the overlap was very interesting!
I particularly like your final question about Clinton’s logos might persist, even outside of office. Your exploration paper spoke of “Hillary’s America” and I think it might be interesting to tackle this idea post-election for your final project. I know you intend to do a series of lesson plans – perhaps make it into an “action project” brainstorming ways for students to continue Hillary’s vision despite her loss. This might begin with researching her historical candidacy, and extend into community work!
The section of your synthesis that I found most interesting was in regards to Clinton’s logical appeal being color blind. I wonder if this served as a limit to logos, in that Clinton trying to reach the majority lacked specificity – which would lack effectiveness. I think this might be specifically helpful for my final project as I am trying to figure out what in her appeals fell short!
As for other posts to look into the synthesis post by “hweinberg707” might be useful. I think they did a really great job at synthesizing Clinton’s early candidacy which could be helpful in developing those early lesson plans!
LikeLike
This is a great analysis of Clinton’s logos, including why she uses logical rhetorical appeals, and how she uses them. I love the question of whether in our society there is room for logos in a political election as at the moment, there seems to be a dearth of logical reasoning. I think that perhaps you could explore further why her logos centered rhetorical appeals were not enough, perhaps because that is not the focus of media and profit driven headlines. You could further explore how many American voters are victims of misinformation, or false logos. Perhaps you could make a video that uses snippets of Hillary and other female politicians best logos driven appeals and explore how these speeches are covered by the media
.
Since I am focusing on Clinton’s ethos as a credible candidate, I could perhaps add that her logos adds to her ethos. In my synthesis I mostly focused on how she tried to seem trustworthy to voters. She used statistics and planned logical policies that were easily available to voters on her website. This use of hard facts to plan policy and logical reasoning in debates and speeches certainly adds to her credibility and ethos, something that I could explore in my own project.
I connect this post to SarahParente’s synthesis which also connects Clinton’s use of logos driven appeals to her gender. The author explains that Clinton’s logical appeals are to her detriment, much like your post which worries about the end of logos as a successful rhetorical appeal.
LikeLike