Tag: obama

  • Political Communication in President Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Address

    Political Communication in President Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Address

    One of the most significant tools in political communication is the use of public addresses and statements by the President of the United States. In addition to directly informing the public, Presidential addresses set the political agenda and put forward direct appeals to the American people. Throughout American history, Presidential speeches have focused on many different themes based on the mood of the public and the events occurring at both the national and international levels. One example of a particular type of Presidential address is the inaugural address. Since the creation of the office of the Presidency, the primary purpose of the inaugural address was to introduce the President to the American people and frame the underlying goals of the administration. The tones expressed in inaugural addresses have varied from inspirational to passionate, and reflect the overall attitudes of the American people. The use of distinct political communication concepts and theories can be used to analyze Presidential inaugural addresses and highlight their underlying messages.

    One of the more notable Presidential inaugural address is Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address. During the 2008 campaign, Obama focused on different rhetorical approaches such as thematic and policy appeals. Thematic appeals are developed by Presidential campaigns in order to explain the broader ideals that a candidate seeks to represent. Some of the thematic appeals used by Obama during the campaign included the need for unity in the face of increasing divisions within American society, the need to overcome both racial and political divides, and the necessity for political change. In addition to the thematic appeals, the Obama campaign focused on several different policy positions including healthcare reform, national security issues, education reform, and the economy. The use of specific thematic appeals and the focus on policy issues highlighted the key theme of change that the Obama campaign sought to promote. In this way, Obama framed his overall message to distinguish it from those of rival candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The overall themes of the Obama Presidential campaign were carried over to the inaugural address and served as a way to frame the overall goals that his administration would seek to follow.

    One of the main rhetorical approaches used by Barack Obama in his inaugural address is his use of optimistic language. Projecting an optimistic and positive tone during difficult times is an important communicative tool because it allows the speaker to impart a feeling of confidence and hope to their audience and create the impression that their actions will turn things around for the better. An example of a President presenting an optimistic message in their inaugural address was by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. In spite of the economic challenges facing America and the feeling of hopelessness felt by many, Roosevelt projected a sense of optimism by stating that the American people had “nothing to fear but fear itself” and by framing his speech in a way that projected the feeling that he understood the challenges and would seek to address them adequately. Much like Roosevelt, Obama attempted to project an optimistic tone in his inaugural address by stating that even though the problems facing the US will not be met easily, they will ultimately be addressed due to the resilience of the American people and due to the change in leadership as a result of his election.

    Another rhetorical approach used in Obama’s 2009 inaugural speech is the call to action to address the economic crisis and to create a new foundation for future growth. Calling for action is important in any Presidential speech because it mobilizes public support for policy proposals and creates a higher level of support at the grassroots level to lead the charge for change. A notable example of a Presidential address that focused on the idea of calling for action to address the issues is John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address in 1961. In this speech, Kennedy stated the American people should, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Through such language, Kennedy was saying that it is in the best interest of the American people to address the challenges of the 1960s and, by doing so, would create a shared sense of duty to the country. Similarly, Obama stated that the people who claimed that the US lacked the ability to tackle emerging challenges ignored the resolve of the American people and what they can accomplish with unity between them and a common goal.

    Another notable aspect of Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address was the fact that he was able to communicate two conflicting messages successfully. For example, Obama spoke of the fact that free market economic policies are a useful tool in creating prosperity and increasing individual freedom, but that it required a watchful eye to prevent its powers from spiraling out of control. Additionally, Obama explained that tough choices are necessary to address the problems at both the national and international level and also expressed optimism that the American people can and would solve such problems. Moreover, the language used by Obama in his speech created the impression that he is the type of leader who is not afraid to suggest that radical actions may be necessary to enact change and settle long-standing issues. It helps also that he is a mainstream and moderate political leader. By communicating two conflicting messages in his inaugural address, Obama is framing his ideas in ways that appeal to both people who supported him and reaching out to people who may be skeptical towards him or his policies. Additionally, by highlighting two contradictory values, Obama is attempting to create the perception that he is a political leader who would look to more pragmatic solutions to address the issues facing America. The idea of pragmatism was also expressed during the Obama campaign, in particular, his pledge to be an inclusive leader who would serve as a representative for all the American people in an uncertain time.

    The Obama inauguration further appeals to traditional values. An important aspect of political communication is the promotion and highlighting of traditional values by political leaders. One of the most important traditional values prevalent in the US is religious faith and religious traditions. Furthermore, the debate over religion is significant within American political discussions. In his inaugural speech, Obama appealed to religious values by thanking God for giving him the opportunity to be President and mentioning that the US is a “nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” Additionally, Obama stated that religious traditions and diversity serve as a binding force within the US to strengthen American society, not divide it. The idea of religion as a unifying source within society further relates to the underlying campaign theme of Obama that cast himself as a unifying leader.

    Barack Obama’s inaugural address also served as a way to reveal the oratorical qualities of Obama himself. During the speech, Obama utilizes language that can be considered to be formal, yet plain enough for the average person to understand. For example, Obama states the US “is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare our nation for a new age.” Through such language, Obama is stating clearly the problems facing the US in a way that can easily be understood by the American people. Additionally, Obama uses lofty rhetoric during the inaugural speech as well. An example of more formal and lofty rhetoric in the speech occurs when Obama states that “the words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.” The use of loftier rhetoric requires the listener to think more about the words to connect them to real-life events. Obama’s use of both formal and informal language is efficient because it enables his speech to have a poetic and rhythmic flow at the same time as allowing the average listener to understand the main points of the speech.

    A number of symbolic themes also surrounded Obama’s inaugural address. The central symbolic aspect was that Obama’s inauguration served as a culmination of the ideas promoted by the Civil Rights movement and as a step forward for the American people. Additionally, the overarching theme of Obama’s inauguration was the idea of “a new birth of freedom,” which recognized the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The idea of the “new birth of freedom” served as a symbol in promoting the idea that the struggles faced by African-Americans over the course of American history had finally come full circle. The media further supported this symbolism in Obama’s inauguration by highlighting the past accomplishment of past Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. Despite the media’s positive to Obama’s inauguration, some argue that the press ignored the continued racial inequalities within the US and attempted to frame Obama’s inauguration as the end to such disparities.

    In conclusion, the Presidential inaugural address serves as a valuable tool in political communication. An analysis of Presidential inaugural addresses allows political scientists to understand better the underlying goals and ideas of the President and the ways in which he communicates such ideas to the American people. Throughout his 2009 inaugural address, Barack Obama touched upon numerous political communication concepts such as the use of an optimistic tone to build confidence in the American people, appealing to traditional values, and calling for action to enact political change. Additionally, the Obama inaugural address promoted the idea that the struggles of the Civil Rights movement finally came full circle within the American political system. The Obama inaugural address further served as a way to introduce the American public to a new President and set the overall tone of the Obama Administration.

  • ISIS: How and Where they Came From

    ISIS: How and Where they Came From

    One major foreign policy issue facing the world over the past few years is the rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). ISIS is an anti-Western militant group whose goal is to establish an independent Islamic state. ISIS currently controls territory in both Iraq and Syria and is seeking to gain more territory throughout the Middle East. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, ISIS has taken advantage of regional instability and publically promoted itself online with graphic videos of threats and violence. The rise and spread of ISIS has further confounded policymakers with regards to their promoting stability in the Middle East. In recent years, there has been much debate at the highest levels of government over ways to combat ISIS and the reasons behind its creation and expansion. As with many other foreign policy issues, the debate over ways to fight ISIS has evoked debate on both sides, with some arguing for a more forceful response and others seeking to stay out of the conflict. The underlying reasons behind the rise of ISIS can be contributed to a number of factors such as the current instability in the Middle East, cultural and religious differences, and intervention in the region by western powers such as the U.S.

    The formation of ISIS can be traced back to 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in response to the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. AQI played a major role in the Iraqi insurgency that followed. They reacted to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq with a variety of violent acts that resulted in the deaths of civilians and U.S. soldiers alike. Despite the fact that AQI was weakened after the death of al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, the organization survived and a faction of AQI separated and began to rebrand itself. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as head of this organization in 2010, changed its name to the Islamic State (IS) in 2011, and the group grew more violent as U.S. forces began to withdraw from Iraq.

    As the U.S. further withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, IS began to expand its efforts into Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. In 2012, IS established the Al-Nusra Front, a satellite organization of IS headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, establishing a base for IS outside of Iraq. The expansion of efforts into Syria gave IS an opportunity to expand its ideology into a newer territory. In an attempt to prevent a rift between both organizations, al-Baghdadi unified Al-Nusra Front and IS in 2013. The name of the organization was then changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, al-Julani refused to align his group to al-Baghdadi and switched his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of the rivalry between the two groups, Al-Zawahiri announced the unification (between ANF and IS) had been annulled as of June 2014. On January 3, 2014, al-Zawahiri announced he had severed all connections with ISIS. As a result, the disputes between ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front worsened, leading to violent clashes between both groups and further adding to instability in the two countries. As of today ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, and Al-Qaeda all operate in the region.

    One of the major underlying reasons behind ISIS’ rise is the instability of the Middle East. Historically, preexisting disputes in the region have been cultural and religious in nature and have only worsened with the addition of western intervention over the past century. One of the main religious disputes has been between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. This dispute causes tension and a desire for dominance in the region between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest and most stable powers in the region. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, whereas Iran is primarily Shia. Interestingly enough, Iraq and Afghanistan, two unstable countries, have sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Furthermore, the recent escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and debate over nuclear proliferation has stirred tension. In addition, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has destabilized the country and made it a prime recruiting ground for ISIS.

    Another reason for ISIS’ creation is the Middle Eastern backlash against western intervention and foreign policy. After the discovery of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, numerous western powers sought to gain a foothold in the region in order to meet their need for resources. With the increasing demand for oil, the U.S. began to assert its influence by supporting western-backed dictators in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In addition, the U.S. has intervened on numerous occasions in order to keep these leaders in power in order to preserve its own interests, such as supporting regime change and military action against leaders who reject U.S. goals and interests U.S. policy of intervention in the Middle East is manifested in the Carter Doctrine, which was laid forward by President Jimmy Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address. The Carter Doctrine stated that the U.S. had the right to intervene in order to defend its interests in the Middle East, in particular, to ensure the access to oil. As a result of the Carter Doctrine, the Middle East became a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, resulting in increased anti-American sentiment throughout the region.

    The most notable example of the U.S. intervening in the Middle East occurred in Iran in 1953 through Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was the CIA/Mossad backed a coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, giving more power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran as an absolute monarch for the next 26 years, executing an estimated 160,000 political opponents, using secret police forces such as SAVAK to torture and intimidate regime opponents such as leftists and Islamists, and allowing little dissent against his rule. One of the major reasons behind the US/Israeli-backed coup was that Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iran’s oil production and use the profits to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. This commandeering of its oil reserves did not align with U.S. interests. Operation Ajax is considered to be an important factor behind the 1979 Iranian Revolution and another reason Iran and the U.S. have a strained relationship today. This reaction to U.S. intervention resulted in heightened instability in the country, which allowed for the current Islamic Republic of Iran to take control. Similarly, the volatility derived from U.S. actions in Iraq and the Syrian Civil war has now promoted the recent rise of the similarly-titled “Islamic State” of Iraq and Syria.

    The main ideology of ISIS is based off Wahhabism, a form of Sunni Islam that follows a strict interpretation of the Quran and promotes violence against non-believers. ISIS’ primary goal is to establish an independent Islamic State in the Middle East and expand its influence into other parts of the world. In order to achieve these goals, ISIS uses several brutal methods, such as mass killings, beheadings and systematic cruelty against those who would challenge their actions, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In addition, ISIS promotes its goals through videos and social media sources, by which the group seeks to gain more recruits. ISIS justifies its actions through religion, as members feel that they have a moral obligation to kill whoever stands in the way of their establishing an independent Islamic State.

    ISIS has received funding from a variety of different sources. The main source is from oil smuggling on the Turkish border, through which ISIS sells oil from Syrian oil fields that it controls for as little as $25 per barrel. Another source of funding for ISIS comes from wealthy individuals in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These donors have long served as sources of funding for ISIS as well as for other violent anti-Western militia groups in the Middle East. Between all of those sources, U.S. officials estimate that ISIS is bringing in close to $1 Million per day in order to fund its operations.

    ISIS also relies on foreign fighters from a number of countries. Some 20,000 foreign nationals are currently fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with roughly 3,400 from Western countries. In addition, an increasing number of U.S. citizens are seeking to join ISIS. According to Congressman Michael McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee, the number of U.S. citizens seeking to join ISIS this year is 150, up from only 50 last year. McCaul also stated that 18 Americans have already succeeded in joining ISIS and 18 others who have joined the similar Islamic terrorist groups. One of the members included is Douglas McAuthur McCain, a Californian who was killed in August while fighting alongside ISIS in Syria.

    There are several possible ways in which the international community can defeat ISIS and restore a sense of stability to the Middle East. At this point, a ground invasion of Syria and Iraq by US troops would only make matters worse because it would result in another major war in the Middle East and directly play into the goal that ISIS has of drawing Western powers into the conflict. One such option to fight ISIS would be for the core countries such as the US to change their economic policy towards the Middle East. If the Middle Eastern Countries become economically interdependent on the United States and each other, the beginning of trade would bring an end to the fighting, leading to increased stability. Stability in the region would help to defeat ISIS because ISIS needs the instability of the region to survive. Furthermore, another thing that would go a long way to help encourage more stability in the Middle East would be for the US and other Western powers to acknowledge their past instances of intervention in the Middle East. Doing so would increase the level of trust between them and the governments of many countries in the region and make them more willing to work to defeat extremism and terrorism. Additional options to fight ISIS include working with local governments in the Middle East in order to identify threats, identify funding for ISIS and similar groups and work to increase public understanding with regards to the reasons why ISIS was created and its stated goals and ideology.

    Works Cited:

    Cambanis, Thanassis. “The Carter Doctrine: A Middle East Strategy past Its Prime.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC. 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

    Dassanayake, Dion. “Islamic State: What Is IS and Why Are They so Violent?” Express. Northern and Shell Media Publications, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

    Dehghan, Saeed Kamali, and Richard Norton-Taylor. “CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iranian Coup.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

    Dilanian, Ken. “US Intel: IS Militants Drawing Steady Stream of Recruits.” AP News. Associated Press, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 May 2015.

    Ghitis, Frida. “Why ISIS Is so Brutal.” CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

    “ISIS: Portrait of a Jihadi Terrorist Organization.” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.

    Reynolds, Ben. “Iran Didn’t Create ISIS; We Did.” The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

    Windrem, Robert. “Who’s Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf ‘Angel Investors,’ Officials Say.” NBC News. NBC News, 21 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

  • Is President Obama’s Immigration Executive Constitutional?

    Is President Obama’s Immigration Executive Constitutional?

    The issue of immigration reform in the United States has ignited a series of political debates over the last few years and has increased the partisan divide between both political parties. In the debate over illegal immigration, some argue that the proper solution is to enhance border security and to provide a program that establishes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, others argue that illegal immigration negatively impacts taxpayers, tarnish the public perception of immigrants, and jeopardizes the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens along the US-Mexican border. Additionally, opponents of comprehensive immigration reform argue that in effect, any reform would “reward lawbreakers” at the expense of immigrants who come to the United States through legal means. The issue of immigration reform has also resulted in several different proposals at the Congressional level by members of both political parties.

    To address a number of issues surrounding illegal immigration, President Obama issued a series of executive orders in November 2014 meant to protect some 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow for a percentage of undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The response to President Obama’s executive actions has been mixed, with Democrats almost universally in favor and Republicans nearly unanimous in their opposition. In addition, the sweeping nature of the executive orders has led some to argue that President Obama’s actions are unconstitutional and represent an instance of executive overreach. In response to the allegations of the order’s unconstitutionality, several states have signed on to a federal lawsuit challenging the Obama Administration. Overall, it can be argued that President Obama’s actions are unconstitutional and represent an abuse of executive power.

    The main point of contention against the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration is that they go against the principle of separation of power and usurp legislative authority regarding the implementation of immigration laws. The historical precedence regarding immigration law is that Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and legislate any laws surrounding it. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution goes on to entrust the legislative branch to “establish a uniform role of naturalization.” Such language confirms the fact that Congress is to have the primary power in establishing laws that determine how noncitizens are to become citizens of the United States. The idea of Congress having the power to regulate immigration has been upheld by the Supreme Court cases in many cases such as Henderson v. Mayor of New York and Arizona v. United States.

    Additionally, President Obama using an executive order to influence existing law may set a precedent for future Presidents to use executive authority to address matters explicitly reserved for other branches of government.
    Additionally, opponents of President Obama’s immigration executive order argue that his decision to not enforce existing immigration law is a violation of his Constitutional powers. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Such guidelines mean that the President cannot nullify or not enforce laws that they do not agree with. An example of a law passed by Congress that President Obama has chosen not to support through his executive order is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). The purpose of the Act was to improve border security by increasing the powers and responsibilities of agencies charged with monitoring visa applications. Additionally, the law gave federal agents increased latitude with deporting undocumented immigrants. Considering such factors, it can be argued that President Obama is acting outside of his Constitutionally defined powers by issuing the executive orders regarding immigration.

    In conclusion, the debate over immigration reform has emerged as an important political topic over the past few years and has served to highlight the partisan divisions between both the Republican and Democratic parties. Numerous solutions were proposed to address the issue, but the stark divisions between both sides have thus far prevented any substantial reform from emerging. The executive orders issued by President Obama has added to the debate over illegal immigration and has raised numerous questions about the powers of the executive branch. It can be argued that President Obama’s executive order are in violation of the principles of separation of power and are in violation of the President Constitutional powers, in particular, their obligation to uphold and execute all laws. Only time will tell if the issue of immigration reform will become settled law and whether or not President Obama’s executive actions will be deemed Constitutional or not.