When Barack Obama was running for president, he promised in a speech to the American public he would not raise taxes on any household that earns less than $250,000 annually. But when he became president, Obama put a tax on cigarettes and indoor tanning, which some members of those households use.

‘Campaigns attack opponents for things they’d do if elected, but don’t say they’d never, either,’ said Kathleen Jamieson, co-founder of FactCheck.org, a website dedicated to examining the truth of political statements.

Jamieson, also an author of 15 books, gave the lecture ‘Finding the Hidden Meanings in Presidential Messages’ Tuesday night in Hendricks Chapel as part of the annual University Lectures series. Jamieson showcased clips from presidential campaigns to address the need to find the hidden meanings in presidential messages.

Presidents make promises they can’t keep because that is how they get elected, Jamieson said.

Jamieson said no matter how eloquently presidential candidates speak, they cannot always call something as it truly is, such as a new tax law, because it would have a different effect on voters. The word ‘tax’ carries a negative and unwanted connotation to the speech and, therefore, the candidate. Presidential candidates must choose their words carefully, knowing what they say may be used against them.

‘When they say something that appears to be very, very carefully worded, beware,’ Jamieson said. In the world of big media, ‘anything can be edited and taken out of context.’

The content of a speech is not always as important as its delivery, Jamieson said.

Obama was elected mainly because he was an eloquent and convincing speaker, she said. This quality, when compared to former President George W. Bush’s, made Obama a very favorable presidential candidate. Obama’s reassuring speeches convinced voters of his credibility, even though the content of his speeches cannot all be proven true, she said.

Jamieson drew a comparison between Obama and President Abraham Lincoln, saying both were elected because of speaking abilities, not legislative experience. Jamieson said the ability to get elected under these circumstances was unique.

When campaigning for president, Obama made speeches he has since failed to live up to, she said. Jamieson said his success in previous speeches cannot be relived unless Obama can create that feeling in his audience again, the feeling that binds a nation together.

‘Inaugurals, for instance, are great because they are given at a time when all feel the same,’ she said. Obama has only been able to give speeches on controversial topics, such as the British Petroleum oil spill and health care.

Even if a new law is beneficial to the economy and American people, Jamieson said it is essential the public believes this.

‘If the public doesn’t believe it, it can’t be considered successful, even if it is,’ she said.

Billy Kang, a senior communication and rhetorical studies major, said he enjoyed the lecture and was glad he went.

‘It was interesting hearing about how rhetoric is used in speaking and how candidates form their speeches carefully,’ Kang said.

Kaycie Miltenberger, a sophomore public relations and political science major, said she was interested in Jamieson’s speech, although she said most of her friends were probably bored.

‘My friends think politics are for old people,’ she said.

Miltenberger, who aspires to be a political speechwriter, said she wants to affect politics and help them ‘make a move toward a more truthful campaign.’

Jamieson summed up her entire speech in two simple words: ‘Rhetoric matters.’

klross01@syr.edu

Published on October 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Contact Kristin: klross01@syr.edu | @kriskross22