How Obama Won the (Rhetorical) Battle for the White House

4 Dec 2008

Employing lexical search and tracking technology, a team of rhetorical analysts provide a comprehensive examination of how Obama's semantic superiority catapulted him to the White House.

Language is a core medium of the social construction of reality. And in the reality of political campaigns, language is carefully selected by politicians and their tacticians to influence voters' thinking and shape their emotions and attitudes about the candidates. Indeed, the signature slogans of this year’s US presidential candidates - McCain’s “Country First” and Obama’s “Yes, We Can” - provide an enlightening illustration of how campaign strategists and speechwriters were able to shape the semantics of a candidate’s language in his quest for the White House.

McCain: Experienced reformer and maverick

John McCain’s language on the stump was mostly characterized by its brevity and precision. He packaged his political message in clear and concise sentences that were, on average, shorter and contained fewer adjectives and adverbs than those of Obama. His favorite words are taken from the lexical - or semantic - field of national security, foreign policy, military strategy, the economy and political institutions. Furthermore, the vocabulary of the Republican candidate was shaped by a significantly higher usage of words connected to traditional values and principles, such as “honor,” “freedom,” “respect,” “virtue” and “duty.” Although McCain employed language that was grammatically less complex than that of his opponent, the prime goal of his rhetoric was to underscore his political experience, judgment and leadership qualities.

In the course of the campaign, McCain even co-opted Obama’s signature call for “change” and gradually incorporated it into his own stump speeches. McCain’s adaptation of the Obama “change” mantra was manifested in his call for “real change” and “reform” to restore a traditional code of honesty and accountability in politics, alongside a reorganization of government and the economy.

Collocations of the word "Change" for McCain

Collocations of the word "Change" for Obama

McCain and Obama also used possessive and personal pronouns to different degrees. During his campaign speeches, McCain employed the words “I” and “my,” as well as “he” and “they,” to a much higher degree than Obama. These emphatic references to himself and his opponent were largely designed to sharpen the political contrast between them. In the television debates, for ex-ample, “Obama” was one of the most often used words by the Republican candidate - 112 times in the final debate.

Uses of "I" per 1000 words

Uses of "he" per 1000 words

 

Uses of "we" per 1000 words

 

 

Also, both candidates used shorter sentences toward the end of the campaign. Unlike Obama, however, McCain’s shorter messages increasingly referenced himself as the subject. As a result, McCain’s sentences became shorter, while his self-referential rhetoric actually increased.

Average length of sentences

Self-references by McCain

In the final weeks of the campaign, McCain also invoked rhetorical devices designed to appeal to voters’ emotions more frequently than Obama. For example, McCain’s use of ‘intensifiers’ –words that are designed to add emphasis, such as “extremely,” “totally,” “really” and “very” – increased sharply in the last push to election day. The same spike was seen in McCain’s use of so-called “tag-questions,” those added-on to the end of declarative statements when seeking or expecting con-firmation of that statement (e.g. “you know?” as used for example in the sentence, “I believe in healthcare reform, you know?”) Much like McCain’s use of the informal phrase “external pagemy friends” during stump speeches, these rhetorical strategies were part of his attempt to create an emotional con-nection to his audience, solidify his base, and win over undecided voters.

Usage of intensifiers per 1000 words

Usage of tag-questions per 1000 words

Obama: Empathetic visionary and cool intellectual

Obama’s political rhetoric, in contrast to that of his Republican rival, was focused from the beginning on dialogue, collectivity and the future. When compared to McCain, Obama used pronouns such as “we,” “you” (plural) and “us” far more frequently, thus creating a strong feeling of community and identification between himself and his audience. In an effort to counter the disillusionment and cynicism many Americans felt toward their country’s political establishment during the campaign, the Democratic candidate’s main rhetorical premise was to generate voters’ trust in himself and his political agenda. This was evidenced linguistically in his campaign slogan “change we can believe in.” Statistically significant usage of words such as “chance,” “hope,” and “dream” in his speeches helped reinforce his political message of change on a linguistic level by emphasizing the potential for progress.

Throughout the campaign, Obama’s language was grammatically more complex than that of his opponent, which was demonstrated not only in his construction of longer sentences but also in his more nuanced linkage of seemingly disparate policy issues. For example, whether Obama talked about US foreign policy, the war in Iraq or renewable energy, he always sought to rhetorically connect the various issues in his speeches (e.g. by presenting a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, which involved simultaneously addressing US foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, or by framing US energy policy as a national security issue due to US dependence on foreign oil). This Obama campaign strategy sought to compensate for his youth and counter concerns about his lack of experience by bolstering his claim to possessing superior policy knowledge and more sophisticated political judgment than his opponent.

Collocations of the word "Iraq" by McCain

Collocations of the word "Iraq" by Obama

While employing a higher level of abstraction in his speeches, Obama also managed to incorporate concrete examples of the daily challenges facing average Americans. Obama’s discussions of high gas prices, rising energy costs, home foreclosures and healthcare premiums, among other core practical concerns enabled him to connect with voters on a level that perhaps his otherwise lofty and inspiring rhetoric could not. By discussing these economic concerns at length, Obama was able to present himself as being tuned into the burning economic and social problems of the American middle-class, which, in turn, allowed him to create a reservoir of empathy and emotional connection with this large swath of the electorate.

Usage of "change" per 1000 words

Usage of "economy" per 1000 words

Usage of "taxes" per 1000 words

Usage of "middle class" per 1000 words

Obama’s “change” rhetoric, however, did not limit itself to the sphere of economic and political reform, as was the case of McCain. Instead, Obama called for a comprehensive cultural and political renewal at home and a rebranding of the US image abroad. Although McCain also denounced a lack of responsibility, nepotism and greed in US politics and on Wall Street, Obama continuously connected his rhetoric of change with a more fundamental political and ideological break with the past eight years of Republican rule in the White House (which he regularly rhetorically associated with McCain, through his use of the phrase, “McCain-Bush”).

This difference was especially visible in each candidate’s discussion of the economic crisis - the most important issue in the final weeks of the campaign. When referencing the economic down-turn, McCain predominantly talked about the impact on small businesses, the creation of jobs, taxes and US dependence on foreign oil. Invoking its frequently used personifications of the American working class, Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder, the Republican campaign largely depicted Obama as a risky, “big-government” liberal, who posed a threat to small business owners, arguing that he would raise taxes and increase government spending. In fact, “spending,” “taxes,” and “wealth” were words frequently used by the McCain campaign when describing Obama.

Obama’s rhetorical handling of the economic crisis, by contrast, stressed its social consequences for American families, the financial burden of the war in Iraq, the export of American jobs, and people's anxiety about their economic future. His 30-minute infomercial, "American Stories, American Solutions," which aired 29 October and outlined the lives of four ordinary American families across the country, was the clearest example of this strategy. The Obama campaign used the ad not only to present its candidate’s far-reaching economic program, but also to pinpoint how his policy proposals would affect Americans on a personal level by examining the experiences and expectations of a cross-country sampling of individuals and families. As a result, in talking about the economy, Obama managed to be rhetorically more complex, while also using language that was more em-pathetic than that of his Republican opponent.

How McCain described Obama during the campaign

How Obama described McCain during the campaign

From the stump to the White House

As with most any political contest, the US presidential election of 2008 was characterized by sharp rhetoric, personal attacks and negative campaigning. McCain crafted a political narrative that was mostly about himself, his political and military record and the risky, dangerous choice his opponent represented. Over the course of the campaign and especially in its final months, McCain’s narrative and language external pageshifted far more frequently than that of his opponent.

Obama’s rhetoric on the stump, on the other hand, remained consistent with his campaign theme, vision and emphasis on the collective efforts that lie ahead. Accordingly, his campaign created a story about America, its struggles and hopes and the direction it should take in the future as one nation. It is with this inspiring message and appeal to unity that Obama won the presidential election.

All indications are that President-elect Obama intends to govern like he campaigned, using both the technical infrastructure and rhetoric of hope, bipartisanship and inclusivity that have brought him to White House in what observers have rightly described as the first political campaign of the 21st century. It remains to be seen, however, how a presidential rhetoric built on the spirit of community-organizing will weather the political realities and challenges of the future.

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser