I'm sure Bush wouldn't describe his speech as effeminite. But for the most part, it is. "Women are more inclined than men to verbally idicate emotion p.81" He constantly pulls at the emotional heart strings of the audience, maybe not always drawing on personal experience, but seems to always make an example out of someone, such as in the 2005 State of the Union Address - he says...

"One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood. (Applause.)"

While this is an example that works well for Bush and his decision to go to war since Byron "loved being a Marine," many times Bush over does his "compassionate conservative" claim and speaks about issues in boaderline sappy way, such as in this little number...

"Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens: boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention, and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad."

or this uplifting ditty about drug abuse...

"Tonight, let us bring to all Americans who struggle with drug addiction this message of hope: The miracle of recovery is possible, and it could be you."

"Manly discourse took an additional meaning: it was rational and data-based p.80"
While Bush does make some pretty strong claims, he seems to lack reason and his biggest problem is that he can't back up his claims. For instance when talking about Social Security he says...

"Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. (Applause.)"

He never gives data, and he never tries to tackle the opposition who believe this kind of investing to be too risky.

But one thing bothers me. So if womanly narrative is well-suited for television, then why is Bush so hard to listen to/look at?

John Edwards UT talk this past October 24: My notes on it are laden with statistics on poverty and actions proposed to alleviate it, but this is not to say that he didn't appeal to the emotions throughout. He did talk quite a bit in the beginning about his personal experiences with families suffering from poverty. His whole speech was based on his empathy towards the suffering and negative effects of poverty. He managed to highlight the problems with poverty while also maintaining respect for those who suffer -- pointing out their strengths of character and hard work. I was actually delighted with the talk and just dismayed that blacks/black youths either did not attend or, far more likely, had just not been invited. That fact made it seem more like PR event rather than a political rally to invigorate young people to activism on poverty.

Ari Fleischer speech at the LBJ school on November 9 of this year: The speech wasn't necessarily a political one, but I do think it is interesting how much he displayed "effeminate" qualities of speaking as well as the tones discussed in the previous chapter (conversational, autobiographical, and captioning). He started out talking about his parents. They are liberal democrats, by the way. He mentioned that his mother or aunt or someone was a Holocaust survivor, and that he had relatives that were adversely affected by the Communist policies in Eastern Europe. This kind of gives him the air of credence when he later compares the taking out of Saddam with the idea of what would have happened if we had taken out Hitler early enough.

He told a story about when Bush told him to just trust him instead of telling him straight out that he was choosing Dick Cheney for Vice President, and this was supposed to support some kind of character trait in the president. Then there was his first day on the job at the White House, and Bush immediately wanted him to play catch with him on the White House lawn. Ari was in his suit with Bush in sweats if were just dying to know that. He also was able to slip in there the fact that he keeps a baseball mitt in his car trunk. He furthered this scenario by talking about Bush throwing the first pitch at the first Yankee game after 9-11. Evidentally it was a strike, pitched on top of the mound instead of in front of it based on advice from Jeter.

The only statistic used was the large number of "democracies" established since Reagan's administration, presumably due to U.S. intervention, but he used these statistics to evoke a moral, emotional justification for the war using captions to evoke evidence of a democracy in Iraq such as "schools were established", banks returned, environmental standards improved, Sunnis voted, and (my personal favorite because it hints at why Iraq is a suitable conflict for US involvement) the purchase of cars took place. His tone was sickeningly conversational - sorry if you are a Fleischer fan, but feeling like this man was trying to relate to me made me feel icky.

I think that Ari's approach to his speech is interesting because it was not televised, but he displayed all the characteristics discussed in these two chapters. Perhaps this style is spreading out from television.

I also think that definitely politicians aren't the only public speakers to make this transition due to television. Evangelists and preachers have as well. Maybe they did it first. Who can say? You still have your fire and brimstone guys, but they are really outnumbered by the I'm going to talk to you on a very personal level, like I'm in your home kind of guys. Today's preachers are masterful of all the traits discussed so far.

I wonder if state of the union addresses make good candidates for Jamieson's argument. The environment is so formal that I cannot imagine many presidents using a strictly narrative, dramatic, or personal approach. I read through Clinton's January 1999 address. Although the speech was conversational, Clinton seldom referred to himself as the agent in a dramatic or associative narrative (there was a comment about his experience with the baby boom). Both Clinton and Bush engaged the television audience in a conversation about what they wanted to do in response to modern problems. That's the format: here's the problem, here's what I want to do. Bush responded to his biggest problem--defending a US presence in Iraq--by outlining his reasons for believing that Saddam had access to certain weapons and that he would use those weapons against his own people (and us, maybe). Whether or not it is a convincing argument, I thought that it was one of the rarer instances where Bush attempted to form a deductive argument rather than an associative one.
Just for comparison, I also listened to Anne Richard's 1988 DNC keynote address. The format was different and Richards was under no obligation to defend US participation in a war, but I think that her speech highlights some of Jamieson's points. At the end of her speech, the audience knew sooo much about Richards: where she grew up, how many grandbabies she has, how her family made it through the depression, what they did on Sunday nights, etc. She truly exhibited a "self-disclosing style that [drew] public discourse out of a private self and comfortably [reduced] the complex world to dramatic narratives" (84). Jamieson argues that women may have a knack for "capturing ideas and lessons in brief dramatic narratives" because the cultural dominance of the "mother-figure" demands it. Richards used peronsal narratives very effectively, but there were many moments where she opted for a more "manly" style of argument. Her discourse was, at times, openly aggressive toward certain Republicans and she resorted to some pretty fierce verbal attacks regarding government participation in arms deals and the drug war. I think that those moments of outright aggression illustrate Jamieson's argument that women, as public speakers, are in the process of reconciling "masculine" and "feminine" rhetorical forms.

I would say that Bush is half and half. He confirms the feminine style of argument with I believes and the angry emphasis he gives certain words after looking at his speech on a podium, yet he does not often offer up personal experience beyond superficial mentions here and there. Like when I was in Texas... blah blah blah... but no mentions of his father or wife or anything beyond the job. Zell Miller goes further with his "I can remember a time" whatnot and I feel he fits this mold a lot better. I find that a feminie approach to speeches would be welcome because as it stands, Bush is a terrible speaker with awful speeches and pales in comparison to the users of this format like Bill Clinton.

I think many public figures use the so-called 'effeminate' style quite frequently, using phrases like "I feel..." or "I believe.." and words such as "personally...". Even the infamous blowhard Zell Miller dips into this method quite often. As I was reading the prompt, I was trying to think of the last time I didn't hear a public speaker using this type of speech. I believe, that last I could recall, was Colin Powell addressing the UN with evidence of WMDs. The factual base (or supposedly factual base) and deductive style he used were quite impressive to me.

I agree with Christine that President Bush uses an "effeminate" style of speech (as defined by Jameison). When listening to his radio address about the new prescription drug plan, I noticed that he does use a lot of associative arguments. For example to prove that the new prescription drug plan will help Americans get the drugs they need for serious illnesses, give patients more variety, and help "America get a medicare system to fit the needs of the 21st century," Bush uses the following illustration:

In the past, Medicare would pay more than a hunder thousand dollars to treat the effects of a stroke, but not a thousand dollars per year for blood-thinning drugs that could have prevented the stroke in the first place."

It's a simple illustration designed to get seniors to associate the new program with effective disease prevention that will lower costs. There are no hard facts presented as evidence. The radio address seems to be designed to "please and soothe but not engage in the vigors of vigorous public debate" (pg. 80). Granted that the new policy is one that has already been passed and will take effect in January, the President says nothing to address the concerns of the opposition. The closest he comes to defending his plan is when he describes it as a plan that is "not a one-size-fits-all plan that does not meet [seniors] needs". The speech sounds much more like an advertisement meant to encourage seniors to enroll for the new prescription drug benefit program. No thought-provoking rhetoric here.

“Womanly speech corrupted an audience by inviting it to judge the case on spurious grounds; manly speech invited judicious judgment.” (P. 78)

Bush is definitely using “effeminate” rhetoric. His entire speech is predicated on one idea: bettering America for our sons and daughters. This is a highly emotional subject and immediately elicits positive and protective feelings, which Bush then uses to convince them of his claims. The entire time he hits on sore spots for people and talks about nothing but the future.

This is of course very personal and dramatic, and since he has an image of a wholesome family man, it also fulfills the “personal experience” part of effeminate speech.

He certainly stresses his strengths rather than counteracting his weaknesses. Page 82: “Men are more comfortable than women in a combative ‘debate’ style.” Later that page: “In their political ads, women tend to stress their strengths rather than counteract their weaknesses.”

Onto the speech:
“Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.” Here he draws on absolutely no evidence to support his claims. A “manly” speech would have gone something like this: 1) Claim. Homosexuality is bad for society. 2) Tons and tons of evidence. Possible evidence could have included: some sort of proof that marriage is the foundation of our society, theories by professionals of how gay marriage will destroy society, etc. Bush sticks to 1), the claim, and doesn’t support it. He instead relies on people’s feelings about homosexuality to maintain his legitimacy.

He does the same thing when talking about stem cell research, which he does directly after mentioning gay marriage. He uses phrases like “culture of life,” “human dignity,” “human life is never bought or sold as a commodity.” These phrases are designed to induce feelings in the audience; they serve no logical purpose. He doesn’t address a single counterargument to his beliefs, which a “manly” orator would have done.

In the section of his speech in which he talks about the War on Terror, Bush again relies mainly on predictions for the future. The closest he comes to supplying real evidence for his claims is when he talks about the different countries the U.S. is working with in the War on Terror. He talks about possible consequences if we were not engaged in this war: “In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades.” This is, again, highly emotionally charged, and also not supported by evidence.

Bush hints at addressing a criticism of the War in Iraq with this statement: “The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.” But it is not explicit, and he does not address why this criticism exists.

In the second sentence in section on the War in Iraq, Bush says, “That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there.” Again, he offers no evidence or justification. A few paragraphs later, he speaks about a young Iraqi woman, which is a personal story and helps Bush use his viewers’ emotions. He then speaks at length on the situation in Iraq as it is now, and where he hopes it will head.

In conclusion, Bush has used the “effeminate style” perfectly, at least from what I’ve seen in his speech. He makes the speech personal and emotional and relies on narrative to get his point across.

Sorry this is so long. I read a transcript instead of watching the video b/c I'm on my laptop in the library and don't have headphones with me, so please, if I’ve missed something, call me on it.