​

Disarm and Conquer

​

I. Introduction

In 1988, then Texas Treasurer Anne Richards delivered a memorable keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that remains remembered for its power, likeability, and use of humor. In this essay, I will be analyzing Anne Richards’ 1988 speech at the DNC, focusing on how she appeals to affect to convey her ideas and strengthen the impact of her rhetoric. I seek to answer the research question: How does Anne Richards use humor and shared experiences to appeal to the emotions of her audience and set up the ideal kairos to strengthen her main idea? First, I am going to describe the cultural and political context of this speech before proceeding into an analysis of this artifact’s textual content that illuminates Richards’ use of humor and personal anecdote as vehicles of affect. Finally, I will conclude with the relevance of this technique and what it says about the use of humor and emotional appeals in rhetoric overall.

​

II. Backgrounds and Contexts

Texas Treasurer and Democrat Anne Richards delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 1988. The decade had so far seen the AIDS epidemic disregarded by President Ronald Reagan, a struggling working class affected by tax cuts, and, as recently as 1987, the Iran Contra Affair, in which United States officials were found guilty of illegally enabling the sale of arms to Iran as a means of supporting the right-wing “Contra” rebels in Nicaragua (nytimes.com). With rising tension and an administration that shamelessly avoided media confrontation, the Democratic Party sought to make an appeal to the groups, defined as outlying “special interest” groups, that felt neglected and unheard by the Reagan administration, primarily, working class families, farmers, people of color. Richards’ speech, opening the 1988 Democratic Convention, took place in Atlanta, Georgia to an audience of convention attendees composed of Democratic nominees and citizens and, more specifically, Democratic citizens from the south. Outside of the immediate venue, the speech was aired via television to the entire country, including people from all ends of the political spectrum and undecided voters. With so many people discontent with the Republican Reagan Administration, the political stage was set for democrats to swoop in and appeal to the numerous struggling, working class citizens disadvantaged by Reagan’s economic policies, which favored the wealthy (Britannica.com).

It is important to note the intention behind this speech, which is to motivate and inspire people--especially people who felt neglected by Reagan’s politics--to vote and vote Democrat in the upcoming presidential election of 1988.

​

III. Analysis and Argument: Affect

For the sake of an argument based on affect, I will note the initial affect triggered by rhetoric as well as the behavior and interpretation associated with triggered emotions. Using this method of understanding how emotion is triggered and internalized, I will examine through analysis how affect is being used by Anne Richards and in what ways her rhetoric is functioning to appeal to the pathos of the audience. Although many aspects of her speech beg pathos, both in the delivery of the text and the text itself, for this examination, I will focus on the textual passages that most implement affect as a rhetorical device, as the tone of Richards’ delivery remains largely consistent throughout in its earnestness and appearance of sincerity.

​

To make her point, Richards uses language to make her audience feel amused, understood, and heard to gain their trust before making them feel angry, indignant, passionate, and loyal. She begins with a salutation in both English and Spanish, a statement of tolerance and acceptance within itself, and comments on her position as only the second woman in history to make the keynote address at the DNC. From the beginning, she plants seeds of thought within her audience that make herself seem likeable to an audience that values tolerance and gender equality before ever directly talking about the political stances of either herself or her party. The introduction as a whole functions as a means of disarming her audience, which she does with humor after shortly introducing herself. After staking her claim as only the second women “in 160 years” to make the keynote address at the DNC, Richards adds a jab of humor that impresses upon women’s competence compared to men’s, saying “Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels” (nytimes.com). While her remark about lacking gender representation in politics may have made her audience feel proud, surprised, and possibly angry, this humor softens the blow and eases suspicion by making her audience once again feel amused. Through this light, comical remark, Richards has effectively set up her audience to consider women’s lacking representation in politics, provoking surprise and indignation in her Democratic audience, whose doxa aligns with the feminist cause. In making this statement about gender in politics, Richards is setting up her audience to be on her side, as she presents herself as an underdog, before disarming them with unexpected humor.

​

Throughout her introduction, Richards establishes a pattern of provocative message, humor or relatable story, message, humor or story. Doing this helps to keep the audience on her side even through controversial statements, as the humor is a social signal for the audience to let their guard down. Following this pattern, Richards comes off her initial humor with a rallying cry that calls out Republican leadership by name, exclaiming that “in a little more than 100 days, the Reagan-Meese-Deaver-Nofziger-Poindexter-North-Weinberger-Watt-Gorsuch-Lavell-Stockman-Haig-Bork-Noriega-George Bush will be over” (nytimes.com). As the pattern goes, following this moment of political message, Richards immediately pivots to humor. “You know,” she says, “tonight I feel a little like I did when I played basketball in the eighth grade. I thought I looked real cute in my uniform, and then I heard a boy yell from the bleachers, '’make that basket, bird legs.’ And my greatest fear is that same guy is somewhere out there in the audience tonight, and he's going to cut me down to size. Real People With Real Problems” (nytimes.com). The anecdote, suddenly thrown in, is not only humanizing, making the audience feel a sense of connection and empathy with Richards as a rhetor, but also functions to disarm the audience and set up brilliantly the first strong pivot in her speech from introduction to main idea and supporting content. While Richards’ humor disarms, it also, in this instance, humbles her, which makes the audience perceive her as more authentic and likeable. Effectively, Richards uses this first portion of her speech to both appeal to and set the emotional repertoire of her audience while also framing herself and her cause in a humanizing light. Humor functions as a way of lowering the audience’s guard, making them feel amused, entertained, and familiar with Richards, which makes them trust her and thus the content of her speech further, which gives Richards more control to manipulate her audience’s emotions and create the desirable kairos necessary for her speech to be successful.

​

​

Richards then establishes common ground with her audience through personal anecdote, sparking empathy within her audience and appealing to their shared, traditionally American values. Richards claims where she grew up, there “wasn’t much tolerance for self-importance” or “people who put on airs”, as she had grown up “during the Great Depression in a little community just outside Waco...listening to Franklin Roosevelt on the radio” (nytimes.com). She continues that it was “back then that [she] came to understand the small truths and the hardships that bind neighbors together” and states “Those [in her community] were real people with real problems” and “real dreams about getting out of the Depression” (nytimes.com). This passage serves as an enormous appeal to American values through emotion. Richards is conveying herself as a person who values community, hard work, authenticity, and the American Dream--values that appeal well to the emotional repertoire of an American audience considering their options for a new leader. This statement works to make her audience feel pride in their culture and way of life as well as fondness and respect for Richards. People trust leaders with values similar to their own, and Richards is presenting herself, and by extension, the political party she represents as having strong, patriotic values, good virtue, and deep understanding of the hardships that plague working class citizens.

​

Richards lays out another anecdote about her childhood in a Christian, working class family living in a rural Texas community before connecting her experiences with those of a young mother also from a small town in Texas. She reads a letter written to her by this young mother, which describes her struggle for the money needed to care for her family. By hearing the experience of a mother--a figure that evokes in most Americans a sense of tenderness and compassion, who is also young, and thus perceived as more vulnerable, causes the audience to feel sympathy for the mother, which opens the door to the audience sympathizing with struggling working class families across the country. By pairing an image that epitomizes vulnerability and evokes compassion with the Democratic cause, the audience is left with a feeling of sympathy and tenderness for the mother that makes the audience want to help her and others like her struggling to provide for their children. The audience interprets these feelings by associating them with the working class in general and whatever cause may help those financially struggling.

​

From here, Richards puts her rhetorical technique of disarming aside, having sufficiently weakened her audience’s guard and skepticism to a point that leaves them more attentive, more trusting, and therefore less critical of what she has to say. She is able to continue on in her speech using stronger, more clearly emotional rhetoric that we as members of Western society might otherwise be suspicious of and proceeds to spend the remainder of the speech rallying her audience with strong, emotional language. She lists the grievances the Democrats have with the Republican party and the Reagan administration and exclaims that voters cannot accept Republican excuses any longer. She connects modern Democratic ideals with those of FDR, uplifts the Democratic candidates, and claims that, for the sake of the American Dream and America’s youth, like her granddaughter Lily, the voters must vote Democrat to ensure a better future for “the greatest country in the world” (nytimes.com). Respectively, Richards uses rhetoric to evoke anger and indignation in her audience, which leads them to interpret these feelings as mistrust and resentment towards the Republican Party followed by receptiveness to the Democratic candidates suggested.

​

IV. Conclusion

As Richards portrays, humor and shared experiences can be used to manipulate an audience by appealing to their emotions, making a rhetor appear more likable and trustworthy, which then makes the audience more vulnerable to their more upfront emotional appeals later on. While it is important to be aware of the ways in which affect is functioning in rhetoric, as it is used to manipulate an audience into feeling specific emotions and agreeing with specific ideas, it is especially crucial to consider how this appeal manipulates. By appealing to the emotional repertoire of the audience, a rhetor can pressure their audience to share their projected values and manipulate the emotional repertoire, as Richards does in her address. Establishing a sense of commonality leads an audience to trust a rhetor and view them as more similar to themselves with their shared values and ideologies. This consequently leaves an audience more receptive to the material that follows with less criticism towards the material than may be expressed otherwise. It is important to pay attention to rhetorical devices and flaws and notice them when they arise, whether it be through framing an argument with emotional appeals that supersede logic or using fallacious logic to make an argument. By bearing in mind how rhetors use language to manipulate their audience, we may become more critical and informed listeners and receivers of media, whether it be in the form of news, entertainment, or direct speech.

​

​

​