Analysis of the President’s Obamas Iowa Victory Speech
President Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory speech was an inductive argument predisposed on a given number of premises. These premises held the note of his speech and kept the public into a belief that his premise would be fulfilled upon assumption of Presidency in the USA. In as much as this speech was anchored on giving gratitude to the Iowa delegates and citizens for overwhelmingly endorsing his candidature as a Democratic presidential torchbearer, it was deeply entrenched on the following premises:
Abolition of tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs of overseas, and instigate a middle-class tax cut, and impose it on the working Americans who have the potential and deserve such levies
His political manifesto was anchored on harnessing ingenuity of farmers and scientists as well as entrepreneurs with the view of liberating America from the tyranny of oil and ends this imposition.
Promised to end war in Iraq and brings back the American troops back to the country
In conclusion, President Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory speech was mainstreamed on a rough of issues that he would tackle if given the mandate to lead the Americans. The validity of his premises and anchored on the inductive arguments he made about the premises above. Therefore, the point of evaluating this speech would be taken with regards to these premises. In addition, Obama’s arguments to offer all these premises become his key anchor of success in his first term presidential elections.
President Obama’s maiden speech on Iowa Caucus victory is inductively based on his main premises. Thus, he believes in his effectiveness to deliver a speech that would convince people based on the listed preemies above. Either Obama’s presidential campaigns are based on premises, which have direct bearing to the lives of the American citizens at all. The model of change in all spheres of life is the deductive argument that Obama relies on to put forth his four campaign premises. For example, affordability of healthcare is the first premise that Obama alludes to in his campaign, and this effectively brings a major boots to his point. By talking about an issue that has not been currently addressed by the previous regime became cornerstone to his speech and campaign bid. In addition, other three premises touched on social and economic issues, which the past government had failed to fulfill to the American people.
Obama in this speech believes that his premises would work in his favor, and without much further ado, hi receives instant applause and endorsement form the crowd. Therefore, Obama’s change platform in closer coordination with the four premises made his speech to be very effective to the people. In addition, he coordinated his speech, and tailored on the four premises based on the order of necessity. Healthcare was the most pressing issues to the Americans, followed by tax breaks, economic liberation of the Americans from tyranny of oil, and finally, ending war in Iraq. The justification to his promises was his inner strength, positive work records that liberated the Illinois healthcare system as a senator. In the second premise, Obama’s maiden Iowa speech conformed to his understanding if the plight of every citizen, and the income inequality in the entire America, and thus promoted for a liberal tax structure. The third premise was justified due to the ongoing conflicts and emancipation in oil production in Alaska, while the last premise was justified due the apparent failure by Bush regime to end war in Iraq. In fact, Obama rode on these justifications to his premises in order to qualify his candidate for presidency.
Obama’s arguments in this speech are indicative, and have no fallacy. This fact is supported by his premises, which are logically and categorically construed to generate conclusion to his presidential bid. A speech exhibiting such logical flow is said to be inductive since it lack deductive arguments. However, certain arguments and premises, though inductive have inherent weaknesses. In this accord, the second premise about tax structure might have been included to sway voters to his candidature, and might not hold valid viewpoint since the president’s Bush’s measure hasn’t been put into concern. Either, deductive and weak inductive arguments would weaken a speech like this. Deductive arguments like generalization of premises are weak and might not vividly support a course of conclusion. Therefore, the problems that would attach to this speech is a bid to exaggeration, which amount to fallacy, and thus making some arguments deductive. While deductive arguments erode the intention of a speech, it’s prudent to uphold positive premises and logical argument to tailor a speech on an inductive note. My overall position on this speech is that it conforms to an inductive status, and bears the credibility of an effective speech. In addition, deductive arguments are fewer, thus could not absolutely erode the positive intention alluded in this speech.
Work Cited
Barack Obama. Iowa Caucus Victory Speech. delivered 3 January 2008, Des Moines, Iowahttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamaiowavictoryspeech.html
