Neo-Aristotelian Speech Analysis

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the speech of former U.S. president, Bill Clinton by using neo-Aristotelian criticism. The question which is going to be evaluated is, whether the rhetoric uses the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience, and was Bill Clinton utilized this manner of persuasion in his speech successfully.

Ethos, Pathos and Logos

In order to evaluate rhetorical devices we have to be aware of the composition of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a set of Ethos, Logos and Pathos. In approximately 300 B.C.E. Aristotle, who was a famous Greek philosopher, wrote a book entitled, “The Art of Rhetoric.” In his book, Aristotle identified the three methods of rhetoric or persuasion. He called them ethos, pathos and logos.

There are numerous means to draw the attention of an audience, amongst them are appealing to logos, ethos and pathos.  These appeals are ubiquitous in nearly all arguments. As Ethos is an ethical or moral argument, Pathos an emotional argument, and Logos a logical argument. (John, p. 35-56)

Description of Artifact

On the evening of August 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton, speaking from the historic White House Map Room, delivered one of the shortest, yet among the most memorable, addresses of his career. In front of national television audience after months of calm the president presented an elucidation of his association with White House intern Monika Lewinsky and an explanation of the lies he had used to conceal the affair.

Method of Analysis

In a speech of slightly over five hundred words, Clinton took responsibility for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky and for having misled people, but he maintained that he had been legally accurate in his Paula Jones case disposition and that he had not asked anyone to lie, destroy evidence, or take any unlawful action. While admitting that his actions were wrong and represented a critical lapse in judgment, he nonetheless offered a mitigating account of his motives. These motives included a desire to shield himself and his family from embarrassment and his serious misgivings about the politically inspired Paula Jones lawsuit. In the final third of the speech, he criticized the Independent Counsel for carrying on an investigation that had started with twenty-year-old allegations about Arkansas business dealings and had moved into an unrelated examination of his private life. Clinton insisted that his misconduct was between him, his family, and their God. He concluded by asking the audience to turn its attention away from these matters and concentrate on the important national challenges that faces the country. (Kennedy, p.42-57)

Report On the Findings of the Analysis

Representative

In the third paragraph of the August 17 address, Clinton describes his transgressions. “As you know,” he says, “in a deposition in January I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.” He continues, “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was ...