A Question of Character: Rhetorical Analysis of Presidential Advertisements

February 3^rd, 2016

In many respects, the public image of a politician is not entirely dictated by his own personal values. By definition, politicians are a representation of their people – to be elected, one must appear to reflect not only good character in itself, but also the general ethos of the nation. This ideal is very clearly demonstrated through both George H. W. Bush’s 1988 “Family/Children” commercial, and Bill Clinton’s 1992 “Hope/Journey” TV Spot. In this paper I will examine the rhetorical practices at work within them, and explain how these practices attempt to convey the upstanding character of their respective candidates. I will further examine the ability of each commercial to do so, and argue that the latter is ultimately more effective in achieving its goals.

In the advertisement campaign for his election, George Bush largely strayed away from appeals to logic, and instead focused on the promotion of his character. In the 1988 commercial labelled “Family/Children”, he appeals to just that – the idea of himself as a family man. This is accomplished primarily through visual rhetoric and narration, as the commercial consists mainly of shots of Bush at a family barbeque. He is shown interacting with families, serving hamburgers, and playing with children; the commercial ends with him raising a little girl into the air and kissing her. These shots are an extremely effective piece of rhetoric, as they show Bush as an actor in traditional American imagery: namely, the picket fence, suburban lifestyle that was so prominent in the post-WWII era of prosperity. They evoke nostalgia for a time before both Watergate and Vietnam, when Americans did not have reason to be so mistrustful of their government. The advertisement therefore insinuates that with Bush, voters would not be electing a scheming politician: they would be electing someone who believes in family values, who might herald a return to a better time. This ideal is further communicated by the soft narration of his wife, who speaks over gentle piano music, evoking calm and safety in the viewer. She once again appeals to Bush’s character by claiming that his lack of a voter base is irrelevant - that the only necessary qualifier for being president is having "a great big family and thousands of friends”. This frames George Bush as a warm, loving man – the embodiment of 1950’s conservatism – and as a result the advertisement is able to successfully convey the validity of both his candidacy and personal character.

Bill Clinton’s 1992 advertisement, titled “Hope/Journey”, is similar to Bush’s in that it attempts to promote Clinton’s character through an emphasis on traditional American values. Their approach differs in that Clinton chose to speak for himself. Instead of offering some specific anecdote, Clinton gives the impression of earnestness: he speaks casually, directly to the audience, occasionally faltering in his speech. By recounting his personal struggle in this manner, Clinton attempts to convey his position as an ordinary American fighting for ordinary Americans. Every single aspect of the commercial furthers this message: we see Clinton’s youth, his hometown, and the store that his grandparents owned. Pathos is evoked in the audience by hearing of his father’s death and the “very limited incomes” of his family. This allows viewers to empathize with Clinton’s struggle and view him as an ordinary person. This idea is aided through narration, as his poor economic outlook is constantly reinforced: he claims that he had to work his way through law school and that he “didn’t care about making a lot of money”. The repetition of this idea is an effective piece of rhetoric as it dispels the conception of Clinton as a privileged, Ivy-league politician (which was public opinion of him at the time[1]). Shots of him helping children, talking to working people, and kissing old women assert that he is instead working to “make a difference” in the lives of all Americans. The compounding influence of all these rhetorical techniques successfully work to convey Clinton’s position as an ordinary American fighting for the everyday people of the country. But no shot better appeals to the legitimacy of his character than the image of a young Bill Clinton shaking hands with John F. Kennedy. His association with an American icon is both an incredible endorsement of his character, and one that paints an image of the American dream – that a boy could meet the president and be inspired to continue his legacy.

While both commercials are ultimately effective in conveying the upstanding character of their candidates, there are notable differences that set them apart. Due to these differences, Clinton’s “Hope/Journey” commercial is, overall, a superior piece of political rhetoric. It is of note that in the 1992 election, Clinton ran and won against incumbent President George Bush by invoking many of the same rhetorical techniques that Bush had used years before: both commercials feature soft piano music; shots fade slowly into one another; and a narrator, shown sitting, speaks directly to the audience. It is possible, even likely, that in preparation for his own campaign Clinton reviewed the materials his opponent had used years before and improved upon their flaws - the most notable being Bush’s inefficient use of time and visuals. Nearly thirty seconds of the “Family/Children” commercial consists of slow, lingering shots of Bush interacting with children. By focusing solely on these images, rather than overlaying them with narration, Bush wastes precious air time and risks losing the attention of viewers. This is worsened by the fact that the focus of the commercial soon shifts from family values to a conflicting image of Bush as an experienced leader. This is unusual, as the preceding message was dedicated entirely to dispelling the concept of Bush as a career politician. His commercial seems much the work of an older man, with its slow, plodding, conflicting tone; by contrast, Clinton’s is much more in line with the sensibilities of a modern audience. Ultimately, the “Hope/Journey” advertisement does not waste a single second – it holds to a distinct narrative and logically develops it throughout the course of the advertisement.

The effectiveness of both Bush and Clinton’s narratives are not only determined by their inherent value as rhetorical works, but also by the era in which they were deployed. In 1988, George Bush was running to fill the place of Roland Reagan: a president who had brought about the nation’s “longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.”[2] While Bush’s appeal to character and 1950s family values is an effective piece of rhetoric in itself, the timing of it was not opportune – he endorsed a return to prosperity in an era that was already experiencing it. Clinton, by comparison, was running against a candidate whose character was already in question. In his first and only term, George Bush abandoned any semblance of family values by focusing solely on foreign policy and military operations (Panama, Desert Storm, Dissolution of the Soviet Union). As a result, the economy faltered, violence rose in inner cities, and high deficit spending continued. [3] By exploiting this domestic strife, and focusing on distinctly American issues, Clinton’s rhetoric is made that much more effective. In his commercial, he appeals to ethos - the legitimacy of his character. In its traditional, non-rhetorical definition, ethos describes the “fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs [their beliefs].”[4] In America, that sentiment is the American Dream - the idea that through hard work and determination, anyone can be a success. In this respect, Clinton’s advertisement is perhaps one of the most powerful works of political rhetoric, as every frame - from his humble beginnings to his chance encounter with an American icon – reinforces this ideal. While George Bush appeals to a very narrow nostalgia, Clinton’s commercial effectively aligns his own character with the ethos of an entire nation.

Ultimately, the political advertisements used by both George Bush and Bill Clinton were effective in that they successfully appealed to each man’s character. Rather than present himself as a capable career politician, Bush chose to instead promote his campaign through warm, nostalgic images of post-war prosperity. While effective in the short term, this family-man persona stands in stark contrast to his actual presidency, during which he neglected domestic issues in favour of foreign wars. His political posturing was no doubt a contributing factor in the effectiveness of Clinton’s “Hope/Journey”, which seems to be a natural evolution of Bush’s commercial in nearly every way. Ultimately, the power of Bill Clinton’s appeal to character comes not simply from the inherent value of his rhetoric, but in the fact that this rhetoric reflected the character of his country.

Works Cited

Family/Children. Perf. George H. W. Bush. 1988. Advertisement.

Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidey. The Presidents of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: White House Historical Association, 2006. Print.

Hope/Journey. Perf. Bill Clinton. 1992. Advertisement.

[1] Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidey. The Presidents of the United States of America. Washington
D.C.: White House Historical Association, 2006. Print.

[2] Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidey. The Presidents of the United States of America

[3] Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidey. The Presidents of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: White House Historical Association, 2006. Print.

[4] "Ethos." Dictionary.com. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.