Buy essay on Neo-Aristotelian criticism

The historian Arthur Schlesinger in the book “The Imperial Presidency” notes that the speeches of presidents play a very important role. According to him, to be successful, the president must show two things: firstly, to show that he has a definite vision and strategy, and secondly, to explain the American public the reasons for his actions. In this regard, Schlesinger compares such presidents as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. According to Schlesinger, Carter had an independent view of things and tried to hold a number of important steps in the domestic and foreign policy. However, he did not like public speaking. As a result, his popularity in the U.S. was low and his successes as president was very small. At the same time the knowledge of Reagan was less than Carter’s, but Reagan (he was called the “Great Communicator”) was able to captivate and inspire the audience. As a result, the image of Reagan did not suffer even after the obvious failures and his successes as president was greater than at the Carter’s.
Lynn Ragsdale in the book “The Presidency and the Press: Negotiating Newsworthiness at the White House”, argues that a successful speech, which is broadcasted on TV, can strengthen the President’s rating at 3%. Paul Brace and Barbara Hinckley, the authors of the book “Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents”, even more appreciate the potential of speech; they are sure that the President’s rating can rise up to 6%. There are also researchers who are skeptical about the rhetorical tool in the hands of the president. Thus, sociologists Dennis Simon and Charles Ostrom in the mid 1990’s published a series of articles in which they argued that the rhetoric of Presidents does not affect their popularity. George Edwards, the author of “On Deaf Ears the Limits of the Bully Pulpit”, proves that in most cases, the speeches are unable to impact the mood of Americans for a long time. The exceptions are some issues of foreign policy, but here the effect usually last for a short period of time (Sachs, 2008).
There are several kinds of speeches, which every president should give. Taking the responsibilities of a president, the new head of the U.S. pronounces “Inaugural Address”. This speech is traditionally broadcasted by most of the TV channels of the U.S., and major newspapers reprint the full text of it. It is believed that this speech allows understanding the priorities of the new head of the country. The speechwriters try to add the Inaugural Address some bright phrase that will become the leitmotif of the new president policies. John Kennedy said a widely quoted phrase: “Ask not what your country has done for you. Ask what you can do for your country!” Ronald Reagan’s Inaugural Address mentioned that “the government is not the mean to solve problems. The government is a problem.” George Bush asked “Americans to become more kind, and the world to be generous.” Bill Clinton asked to “do something that America does the best: offer more opportunity for all and demand more responsibility from everyone”.
The second “mandatory program” speech of the President is a “Message to Congress,” which is pronounced at the beginning of each year – in January. The same as the Inaugural Address, “Message to Congress” normally gathers a huge audience of listeners. The main purpose of speech is to define the development priorities of the United States for the next 12 months (Lammers, 2000).
In addition, the president gives speeches at the conventions of his party; they are called the Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speeches. This is done in anticipation of new elections; the party fellows formally endorse the candidature of the current head of the country as the official candidate of their party. The Conventional speech, tend to be based on a simple pattern: the President reports on his success in running the country and makes plans for the future. The broadcasting from the Party congresses also attracts much attention of U.S. citizens and therefore is considered to be very important; they affect the results of future elections.
Thus, there is no need to explain how important public speeches are for politicians.
Even in Aristotle’s writings there is a reflection of all the fundamental principles on which the evidence, emotional and psychological and stylistic adequacy of public speaking are based. It is for sure that the “Rhetoric” of Aristotle is the most profound and systematic study of the major problems of oratory, in particular those, which are related to argument.