Communications and Media

Rhetoric is one of the most debated fields of study. There have been various definitions as to what exactly the term rhetoric means. For some scholars and well established academicians the term rhetoric could be taken to mean the study of the technique and rules for using language effectively especially in public speaking. Others take this term to mean loud, confused and empty talk. Some scholars also refer to the term rhetoric to mean a high-flown style of public speaking in which there is excessive use of verbal embellishment. Finally, there is this other group of academicians and scholars who in their view rhetoric is using language effectively to please or persuade.

Persuasion on the other hand means a personal belief or verdict that is not founded on evidence or assurance. It can also be defined as communication intended to induce belief or action.

Rhetoric in most cases is used for the purposes of persuasion. It is the art of using language as opposed to logic which is the art of reasoning when making arguments. It was taught by Gorgias of Leontini and Protagoras of Abdera, the ancient sophists. Rhetoric was taught in order to make people superb public orators especially in politics. The sophists got much opposition from philosophers Socrates and Plato who accused them of teaching for pecuniary gains (1-2). To critics, rhetoric did not reveal the truth but rather masked it.  In lieu of rhetoric, they propagated for ratiocination which is methodical and logical reasoning. This led to the birth of logic- the art of making arguments by use of reason- a complete departure from rhetoric.

To better understand the relationship between rhetoric and persuasion it is in order to use an article. For the purposes of this paper we will look into the letter that the former President of the United States of America- George bush  wrote to the late Saddam Hussein. The letter was directed to the Iraqi dictator warning him of the invasion of Kuwait.

In the article the use of rhetoric for persuasion is evident. The article is on its surface structure a very persuasive piece of writing intended to convince the notorious Iraqi president to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. When read with a critical eye it can be observed that in the letter Bush puts forward an argument which is neither rational nor is it convincing. There is no debating point for Saddam. It is either he complies or a war may break out.

In essence, it is clear that the major rhetorical objective is not to persuade the dictator- Saddam- to act rationally. Rather it is an attempt to explain to the publicaudience why the country had to go to war with Iraq. President George Bush aims at putting a political spin on a conflict that may turn out to be bloody and which may lead to the perishing of many soldiers.  This is after a consideration that there were some prevalent fears before the war that Saddam was in possession of a vast stock of biological and chemical weapons and also was suspected to be in the possession of nuclear devices. In this letter, Bush develops a persuasive tone. He does this using perfectly calculated diction, repetition, sentence length and persuasive appeals all of which are aimed at underscoring the threatening tone that underlies throughout the context of the letter.

Though the immediate context seems to be that of persuasion, it is not the chief objective of George Bush. This is because the letter in itself does not have a rational perspective at all. Clearly the article does not create room for a rational discussion. It is in essence a one sided article- one that is merely a threat. The letter authoritatively commands Saddam to remove his troops from Kuwait failure to which his forces will be obliterated. This however it does cunningly.

The use of language and also the style with which the language is used by Bush is of great importance to the achievements of his goals. Bush tires to avoid the excessive rhetoric that is typical of political speeches and letters. He does this through refraining himself from using figurative language that basically plays on word meanings and instead uses simple and precise words to deliver his point home.

Within the letter it is also evident that Bush has developed his language to possess some persuasive appeals. He feigns moral uprightness when he asserts in the article that there can be no reward for aggression. He goes ahead in the letter and gives an assurance that the reason for writing the letter is to hasten the process of democracy in the region. One thing that leaves the audience wondering is whether this carefully prepared sense of ethos has anything to do with the oil fields in Iraq.

In true, the mood and tone of the letter is aimed at persuading the world. Bush uses deliberately, inclusive and exclusive words to create an opposition between the world and Saddam. He repeatedly uses words such as world, coalition partners and we in direct opposition to words such as you and your to completely isolate Saddam from what Bush portrays as world opinion.

Evidently the use of rhetoric for the sole aim of persuasion results in negative results. For instance the result of this letter to Saddam was a war that ended up killing thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers. The reason for this is that when an individual is persuaded especially through rhetoric the individual becomes suspicious of the person who persuades himher and thus attains a certain degree of distrust (3).