rhetorical analysis of a more perfect union speech

A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech

If you’re about to write A More Perfect Union rhetorical analysis, make sure to check out our sample essay! Here, you’ll find A More Perfect Union Speech Summary and learn more about the speech’s purpose and tone.

A More Perfect Union: Analysis Introduction

• A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis: Race Relations

A More Perfect Union: Rhetorical Analysis

A more perfect union: speech rhetorical analysis conclusion.

In 2008, Barack Obama gave a speech, “The Perfect Union.” It provoked arguments among individuals. Some people criticized it for containing provocative statements and delicate topics. No one would ever dare to speak about them before. This essay provides Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech analysis.

The senator spoke about the complicated race relations between Americans and racism. It has deep roots in the history of the country. The analysis itself is going to provide some insight into Barack Obama’s speech strategy.

“A More Perfect Union” is the slogan of a speech by then-senator Barack Obama. He gave it during the 2008 Democratic Party primary contest for the presidential nomination on March 18, 2008. His audience was at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In essence, the address as a response to controversial statements. They were made by his former pastor and presidential campaign supporter Jeremiah Wright.

The speech played a considerable role in Barack Obama’s success in the 2008 presidential campaign. Such topics as the racial division in the US, white supremacy, and institutional racism were discussed. The speech also addressed black “anger,” white “resentment,” and other topics. Barack Obama sought to clarify and contextualize the controversial remarks of Wright. His speech concluded with a plea to push past the “racial stalemate” in America. People should unite to resolve common issues. The following “A More Perfect Union” speech analysis aims to discuss that.

A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis : Race Relations

Barack Obama is very conscious of his audience and mindful of it in his message. His target group is the Americans and voters in particular. He goes further. After confronting the entire American population, he splits his audience into several groups.

The second group he mentions is White Americans. He talks about the racial scars which have continued to affect them through many generations. Barack Obama approaches the issue of racial inequality with patience. He ensures that he does not inflict more suffering or further divide based on race. Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to make his point clear.

Thirdly, Barack Obama talks to the African American population. He understands that they also see him as a black American. The people are, therefore, curious to see how he approaches racism issues.

His message to them shows no race favoritism. He states that ‘a similar anger exists within the segments of the white community’ (Obama, par. 35). While addressing them, he explains that this feeling is present among the whites every time the blacks get better services. They feel like they are paying for mistakes they did not make.

The presidential candidate is demonstrating his vast knowledge on the subject. He cautiously selects his words while addressing racism. The problem has affected American people for too many decades to be unattentive. His masterful approach to such a painful issue brings comfort to his listeners. The public seems calm and shows no hostile emotions. This is clear proof that he knows his crowd well enough to meet their needs.

After that, President Barack Obama made his message clear. Seeking solutions to the issues the American people faced is the primary goal. He warns them that silence on racism would not solve anything.

His speech includes the idea of tolerance and solidarity. He needs people to try to live with each other and to understand racial differences. Barack Obama makes sure he has addressed both groups equally. This way, he can unite them as one people and one audience. He also outlines the importance of speaking in one voice. Working together in cooperation is the best future for American citizens.

Barack Obama’s opening statements of ‘A More Perfect Union’ reveal the purpose of the speech. He takes his first phrase from the Constitution of the United States, ‘We the people, in order to create a perfect union.’ The statement captures the basis of the Constitutional Convention.

Throughout his address, Barack Obama uses three rhetorical strategies. His argument is based on the following: emotional, ethical, and logical fallacies. He describes himself through his reasoning regarding the audience. The famous quotes he extracts from the Constitution make those unfamiliar with it feel the value of his message (Stoner & Perkins 93). Barack Obama’s rhetorical analysis is aimed to deconstruct these fallacies.

Emotional Fallacies:

Barack Obama, in his speech, criticizes the old legacy of slavery in America. He acknowledges the Constitution, though deems it unfinished. He tells his audience that the answers to their problems remain in the Constitution. According to the senator, it has flaws attributable to slavery in the country.

The senator is frustrated with the “unfinished” document. He is using a tone of deep disappointment to oppose slavery. He applies an ironic tone to describe how a continued slave trade left a burden on future generations. Thus, using various linguistic techniques helps to pass on his intended knowledge.

Barack Obama believes the Constitution offered the answer to the slavery question. He goes on to add that the assurances made on the paper have not been fulfilled. Barack Obama tells a great story about Ashley toward the end of his discourse. ‘I am here for Ashley,’, he says.

Ethical Fallacies:

His public is aware of racism. Barack Obama is thinking about what has traditionally been untold. Through discussing his biological, mental, and cultural existence, he completes his philosophies. The senator speaks of his background and does not ignore his own identity. However, it does not appear in the speech. The senator carries out his address through body language, tone variation, and gestures.

He says, ‘But race is an issue I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now’ (Obama, par. 26). He assures the audience that race relations can become better in the USA.

Barack Obama also uses pathos to explain the evils which racism causes. He expresses his disapproval of racism in America. To resolve the challenges that racial prejudice creates, he encourages people to live and work together.

Logical Fallacies:

Barack Obama also makes use of repetition as a rhetorical approach to convince his voters. In Paragraph 45 of his speech, he pleads with his audience not to accept being divided by their weaknesses. There is a repetition of the word race in his speech. He recognizes race as a problem in American society in paragraph 26.

Moreover, the senator uses a variety of tactics to communicate with the target audience. His convincing appeal demonstrates that he is a successful author and presenter. Using compelling and adequate evidence shows his incontestable ability to move and convince his audience. He exemplifies the Constitution, his pastor, and his family, leaving everyone deeply impressed.

Barack Obama is shifting his tone to a more direct one. He says. ‘I deeply believe that we can not solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together’ (Obama, par. 6). The genuineness in his speech lasts to the end, making a constant residue in the remainder of the address.

So, in his talk, Barack Obama gives his supporters assurance and hope. He uses motivational terms such as ‘we can do that’ (Obama, par. 46), ‘we can only tackle race as a spectacle….’ (Obama, par. 45) and ‘we can come together and say: Not this time’ (Obama, par. 48). It becomes clear from where he derives his campaign slogan, ‘Yes we can’ and what it means for all Americans.

Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech rhetorical analysis has shown that the senator used numerous rhetorical devices. He implemented them to talk deliberately on the issue of race others would hesitate to address. Indeed, Barack Obama’s ability to deliver a complicated and convincing speech is evident. We can conclude from the analysis that he is a successful writer and knows his audience well.

He employed various figures of speech and narrative techniques. They helped him to deliver his key ideas to the people smoothly. During the Democratic National Convention, “A More Perfect Union” speech left an impression on his supporters and opponents. He was elected the President of the United States of America shortly after.

• Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. 199, Berkeley: University of California Press. Print.
• Ifill, Gwen. The breakthrough: Politics and race in the age of Obama. 2009, New York: Doubleday. Print.
• Obama, Barack. Transcript of Obama Speech . 2010. Web.
• Stoner, Mark, & Perkins, Sally. Making Sense of Messages: A Critical Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism . 2005, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Print.

What is the theme of A More Perfect Union?

Soon-to-be President Obama talks on the theme of racism in his brilliant “A More Perfect Union” speech. He addressed the issue of ethnic division in the United States. It is deeply rooted in the country’s history of slavery and could not leave his audience unimpressed.

What is the purpose of Barack Obama’s speech?

Barack Obama decided to give the speech as a response to controversial statements. His former pastor and election campaign supporter Jeremiah Wright made them not long before. He also genuinely wanted to address the serious issue of racism. It was never reviewed so thoroughly previously.

How to start a rhetorical analysis of Obama’s speech?

Start Barack Obama’s speech analysis essay with a short preface and an introduction. Explain the contextual background for that address. Do not forget to mention what exactly your analysis is going to research.

Who wrote Obama’s State of the Union speech?

“A More Perfect Union” was written and edited by Barack Obama and his chief speechwriter Jon Favreau. He dictated a long draft to Favreau on March 15, who then revised the speech. Throughout the next two days, Barack Obama kept working on it. The final draft was ready on March 17.

What does a more perfect union mean?

In his speech, Barack Obama expressed his thoughts about the many racial struggles the American people were going through. For the senator, the idea of a more perfect union symbolized the cross-ethnic solidarity. It represented compassion that would make people work together on the common issue.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, July 8). A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech. https://studycorgi.com/a-more-perfect-union-speech-analysis-barack-obamas-speech/

"A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech." StudyCorgi , 8 July 2020, studycorgi.com/a-more-perfect-union-speech-analysis-barack-obamas-speech/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech'. 8 July.

1. StudyCorgi . "A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech." July 8, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/a-more-perfect-union-speech-analysis-barack-obamas-speech/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech." July 8, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/a-more-perfect-union-speech-analysis-barack-obamas-speech/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech." July 8, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/a-more-perfect-union-speech-analysis-barack-obamas-speech/.

This paper, “A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis – Barack Obama’s Speech”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 24, 2024 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

Why it worked: A rhetorical analysis of Obama’s speech on race

The National Conference of Teachers of English (NCTE) has declared today a National Day on Writing.  I celebrate such a day.  The introduction of my book "Writing Tools" imagines what America might look like and sound like if we declared ourselves a “nation of writers.” After all, what good is freedom of expression if we lack the means to express ourselves?

To mark this day – and to honor language arts teachers everywhere – Poynter is republishing an essay I wrote almost a decade ago.  Remember? It was the spring of 2008 and Barack Obama was running for president. Many of us wondered if America was ready to elect an African-American president (a man with the middle name Hussein).

To dispel the fears of some white Americans and to advance his chances for election, Obama delivered a major address on race in America, a speech that was praised even by some of his adversaries. Obama had/has a gift for language. He is a skilled orator. To neutralize that advantage, his opponents – including Hillary Clinton at one point – would characterize Obama’s words as empty “rhetoric” – an elaborate trick of language.

The Spring of 2008 seems like such a long time ago.  A time just before the Great Recession.  A time just before the ascendancy of social networks and the trolls who try to poison them.  A time before black lives were said to matter in a more assertive way. A time before fake news was anything more dangerous that a piece of satire in the Onion. A time before Colin Kaepernick took a knee — except when he was tired.  A time before torch-bearing white supremacists marched through the night in Charlottesville, Virginia.   

It feels like the perfect time for a restart on a conversation about race. To prepare us, let’s take another look at the words of Barack Obama before he was president. Let’s review what he said, and, more important, how and why he said it. My X-ray analysis of that speech is meant not as a final word on that historical moment, but as an invitation, a doorway to a room where we can all reflect on American history and the American language.

Have a great National Day on Writing.  

More than a century ago, scholar and journalist W.E.B. DuBois wrote a single paragraph about how race is experienced in America. I have learned more from those 112 words than from most book-length studies of the subject:

After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world, a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness, — an American, a Negro;  two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."

Much has been said about the power and brilliance of Barack Obama's March 18 speech on race, even by some of his detractors. The focus has been on the orator's willingness to say things in public about race that are rarely spoken at all, even in private, and his expressed desire to move the country to a new and better place. There has also been attention to the immediate purpose of the speech, which was to reassure white voters that they had nothing to fear from the congregant of a fiery African-American pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

Amid all the commentary, I have yet to see an X-Ray reading of the text that would make visible the rhetorical strategies that the orator and authors used so effectively. When received in the ear, these effects breeze through us like a harmonious song. When inspected with the eye, these moves become more apparent, like reading a piece of sheet music for a difficult song and finally recognizing the chord changes.

Such analysis, while interesting in itself, might be little more than a scholarly curiosity if we were not so concerned with the language issues of political discourse. The popular opinion is that our current president, though plain spoken, is clumsy with language. Fair or not, this perception has produced a hope that our next president will be a more powerful communicator, a Kennedy or Reagan, perhaps, who can use language less as a way to signal ideology and more as a means to bring the disparate parts of the nation together. Journalists need to pay closer attention to political language than ever before.

Like most memorable pieces of oratory, Obama's speech sounds better than it reads. We have no way of knowing if that was true of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but it is certainly true of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. If you doubt this assertion, test it out. Read the speech and then experience it in its original setting recited by his soulful voice.

The effectiveness of Obama's speech rests upon four related rhetorical strategies:

1.  The power of allusion and its patriotic associations. 2.  The oratorical resonance of parallel constructions. 3.  The "two-ness" of the texture, to use DuBois's useful term. 4.  His ability to include himself as a character in a narrative about race.

Allusion Part of what made Dr. King's speech resonate, not just for black people, but for some whites, was its framing of racial equality in familiar patriotic terms: "This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, 'My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty of thee I sing.  Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.'"  What follows, of course, is King's great litany of iconic topography that carries listeners across the American landscape: "Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!…"

In this tradition, Obama begins with "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union," a quote from the Constitution that becomes a recurring refrain linking the parts of the speech. What comes next is "Two hundred and twenty one years ago," an opening that places him in the tradition of Lincoln at Gettysburg and Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial: "Five score years ago."

On the first page, Obama mentions the words democracy, Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia convention, 1787, the colonies, the founders, the Constitution, liberty, justice, citizenship under the law, parchment, equal, free, prosperous, and the presidency. It is not as well known as it should be that many black leaders, including Dr. King, use two different modes of discourse when addressing white vs. black audiences, an ignorance that has led to some of the hysteria over some of Rev. Wright's comments.

Obama's patriotic lexicon is meant to comfort white ears and soothe white fears. What keeps the speech from falling into a pandering sea of slogans is language that reveals, not the ideals, but the failures of the American experiment: "It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations." And "what would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part … to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

Lest a dark vision of America disillusion potential voters, Obama returns to familiar evocations of national history, ideals, and language:

— "Out of many, we are truly one." — "survived a Depression." — "a man who served his country" — "on a path of a more perfect union" — "a full measure of justice" — "the immigrant trying to feed his family" — "where our union grows stronger" — "a band of patriots signed that document."

Parallelism At the risk of calling to mind the worst memories of grammar class, I invoke the wisdom that parallel constructions help authors and orators make meaning memorable. To remember how parallelism works, think of equal terms to express equal ideas. So Dr. King dreamed that one day his four children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." ( By the content of their character is parallel to by the color of their skin .)

Back to Obama: "This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America." If you are counting, that's five parallel phrases among 43 words. 

And there are many more:

Two-ness I could argue that Obama's speech is a meditation upon DuBois' theory of a dual experience of race in America. There is no mention of DuBois or two-ness, but it is all there in the texture. In fact, once you begin the search, it is remarkable how many examples of two-ness shine through:

— "through protests and struggles" — "on the streets and in the courts" — "through civil war and civil disobedience" — "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas." — "white and black" — "black and brown" — "best schools … poorest nations" — "too black or not black enough" — "the doctor and the welfare mom" — "the model student and the former gang-banger …" — "raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor" — "political correctness or reverse racism" — "your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams"

Such language manages to create both tension and balance and, without being excessively messianic, permits Obama to present himself as the bridge builder, the reconciler of America's racial divide.

Autobiography There is an obnoxious tendency among political candidates to frame their life story as a struggle against poverty or hard circumstances. As satirist Stephen Colbert once noted of presidential candidates, it is not enough to be an average millionaire. To appeal to populist instincts it becomes de rigueur to be descended from "goat turd farmers" in France.

Without dwelling on it, Obama reminds us that his father was black and his mother white, that he came from Kenya, but she came from Kansas: "I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slave and slave owners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."

The word "story" is revealing one, for it is always the candidate's job (as both responsibility and ploy) to describe himself or herself as a character in a story of his or her own making. In speeches, as in homilies, stories almost always carry the weight of parable, with moral lessons to be drawn.

Most memorable, of course, is the story at the end of the speech — which is why it appears at the end. It is the story of Ashley Baia, a young, white, Obama volunteer from South Carolina, whose family was so poor she convinced her mother that her favorite meal was a mustard and relish sandwich. 

"Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue.  And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. … He simply says to everyone in the room, 'I am here because of Ashley.'"

During most of the 20th century, demagogues, especially in the South, gained political traction by pitting working class whites and blacks against each other. How fitting, then, that Obama's story points in the opposite direction through an old black man who feels a young white woman's pain.  

CORRECTION : An earlier version of this post incorrectly attributed the phrase, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" to the Declaration of Independence.

Opinion | Elon Musk hired safety chiefs for X. Will it actually get safer?

Based on Musk’s history as the owner of the social network, you can see why the news has been met with skepticism.

Opinion | Who should fact-check the fact-checkers? Everyone

Transparency of sources is the key to evaluating the work of any fact-checker

Opinion | Fact-checking’s impact on elections: A case study from Portugal

Elections are the ultimate expression of democracy and the prime metric for assessing the influence of fact-checking within democratic societies

Why the federal government is paying upfront to fix the Baltimore bridge

The federal government stepping in to pay to rebuild the bridge doesn’t necessarily mean taxpayers will cover the entire bill

Opinion | Kim Mulkey, a tough coach, overreacts to a critical profile

Washington Post reporter Kent Babb’s hotly anticipated profile was full of standard, thorough reporting — hardly the ‘hit piece’ Mulkey had described

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis

“A More Perfect Union” was a speech by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008. In his most famous speech, Obama elicited debates among many people. It addressed the issue of race in the United States, aiming to rethink divisions within the country. Obama’s speech is criticized for having rhetorical statements and sensitive topics that no one would dare to talk about back then. This essay provides an argumentative rhetorical analysis of Barack Obama’s speech – “A More Perfect Union.”

• The Audience
• Rhetorical Fallacies

Works Cited

Barack obama’s target audience.

In his speech, Obama is very conscious and aware of his audience. His primary target audience is the American population and especially the voters. After addressing the entire American population, he goes further and splits his audience into different groups.

The second group that he addresses is the White Americans. In his speech, he lets them know that there are racial wounds that continued to affect them and many generations. Obama cautiously addresses the challenge of racial discrimination, making sure he does not cause more pain or divide people further through race. However, he does not shy away to put his point across and make his stand known.

Thirdly, Obama addresses the black Americans. As a matter of fact, he is aware that people see him as a black American. Therefore, the people are keen to see how he handles the issue of race.

His message for them does not show any favoritism of race. He notes that, ‘a similar anger exists within the segments of the white community’ (Obama Par. 35). While addressing them, he explains at length that there existed a general feeling among the white when the blacks got better services. The feeling was that of paying for mistakes they did not commit.

Obama shows his wealth of knowledge on the issue that affects people of America. He selects his words carefully while addressing racism that has for many decades affected American people He crafts his speech to be convincing and instead of the issue of race eliciting pain, this time it soothes. The audience is rather calm and does not elicit any aggressive emotions. This is a clear demonstration that he knew his audience well and their needs.

Obama then makes his point clear, aiming to give a solution to the challenges faced by the people of America. He cautions the American people from thinking that forgetting about racism would solved the problem.

The message contained in his speech is that of peace and unity. He wants them to learn to live with one another and appreciate differences in race. Obama ensures that he has addressed the two groups equally so that he unites them together as one people and one audience. He further discusses at length the importance for Americans to speak in one voice and work together in unity.

Rhetorical Fallacies in A More Perfect Union Speech

In his speech, ‘A More perfect Union’ Obama’s opening statements reveals the purpose the speech intended to meet. Obama obtains his first statement from the United States Constitution, ‘We the people, in order to create a perfect union’ (Obama par. 1.). These words reframe and capture the rationale of the Constitution.

Obama employs three rhetoric strategies in his speech. His speech rest upon: emotional, ethical and logical fallacies. He identifies himself with his audience persuasion. The famous quotes he derives from the constitution, makes even those who do not know the constitution, feel the importance of messages communicated (Stoner & Perkins 93).

His audience is aware of racism and Obama speaks of what has generally been unspoken. He achieves his philosophies by speaking facts, about his biological, intellectual and cultural life. The senator speaks about his background and does not deny his race; however, he does not bring it up in the speech (Ifill 54). Burke notes that, Senator Obama accomplishes his speech through, body language, variation of tones and gestures (78).

In his speech, Obama criticizes Americans’ old stain of slavery. He praises the constitution though uncompleted and assures his audience that the solutions to their problems were in the constitution. According to the senator, the constitution has stains due to nation’s original sin of slavery (Obama par.3), ‘…and the underlying roots of inequality and division in America’ (3).

Obama feels that the constitution provided ‘the answer to the slavery question… ‘a Constitution that promised people liberty and justice a lie that he says has been perfected over time’(4). He continues to add that the promises made on the paper were unaccomplished. Towards the end of his speech, Obama tells a story about Ashley. ‘ I am here because of Ashley’ (59). He uses this compelling and appealing approach of a moving and memorable story to seek sympathy from the voters.

Obama also uses repetition as a rhetoric approach to persuade his supporters. In his speech Paragraph 45, he pleads with his audience not to accept to be divided along their areas of weakness. In his entire speech, there is a constant repetition of the word race. In paragraph 26, he identifies race as a problem in the American society.

He says ‘But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now (Obama para. 26). In paragraph 45, he believes that the nation could deal with race by assuring his listeners and saying ‘We can tackle race only as spectacle (45). Other preceding paragraphs also explain the evils caused by racism. This, he uses to express his disapproval of racism in America and encourages people to live and work together to solve challenges created by racism

Obama uses various strategies to connect with the targeted audience. His persuasive appeal proves he is a successful writer and a speaker. His unquestionable ability to move and convince his audience using compelling and sufficient evidence like the constitution, his pastor and his family leaves one fully convinced.

Obama expresses a sense of disappointment over what he calls the ‘unfinished’ document. Actually, he uses a tone of deep disappointments to disapprove slavery (Obama Para. 6.). In fact, an ironical tone is felt when he says slave trade continued for decades and the burden left for to the generation to come. Therefore, his ability to pass his intended information using the application of different stylistic devices is achieved.

Obama changes his tone and uses direct tone. He says..‘I believe deeply we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve the together’ (Obama para. 6.) There is directness in his speech, which continues with to the end, he makes unity a constant remainder in the rest of the speech.

In his speech, Obama sets to give assurance and hope to his supporters. He uses encouraging words like ‘we can do that’ (46), ‘We can tackle race only as spectacle….’ (45) and ‘we can come together and say, “Not this time.”’ (48). By the end of the speech, it is clear where he derives his campaign slogan ‘Yes we can’ and what it meant to all Americans.

This extensive argumentative analysis has revealed that Obama used different rhetorical elements to talk cautiously about a topic on race that many would not dare to discuss. As a matter of fact, Obama’s ability to give a complex and a convincing speech is evident. From the analysis, we can conclude that, Obama is a successful writer and speaker who knew his audience needs. He employed the use of different figures in speech and stylistic devices to pass sound messages to people without any incidents.

Burke, Kenneth. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method . Berkeley: University of California Press. Print.

Ifill, Gwen. (2009). The breakthrough: Politics and race in the age of Obama . New York: Doubleday. Print.

Obama, Barack. (2010). Transcript of Obama speech . Web.

Stoner, Mark. & Perkins, Sally. (2005). Making Sense of Messages: A Critical Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Print.

Further Study: FAQ

📌 what are the rhetorical devices in a more perfect union speech, 📌 why did barack obama’s a more perfect union speech work, 📌 what is barack obama’s speech style, 📌 what is a more perfect union speech summary.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 28). ’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-rhetoric-analysis-of-barack-obamas-speech-the-perfect-union/

"’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/a-rhetoric-analysis-of-barack-obamas-speech-the-perfect-union/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-rhetoric-analysis-of-barack-obamas-speech-the-perfect-union/.

1. IvyPanda . "’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-rhetoric-analysis-of-barack-obamas-speech-the-perfect-union/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "’A More Perfect Union’ Barack Obama Rhetorical Analysis." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-rhetoric-analysis-of-barack-obamas-speech-the-perfect-union/.

• Barack Obama's Speech as a Rhetorical Example
• Rhetorical Analysis of Obama's Speech
• Political Rhetoric: Barack Obama’s March 18 Speech
• Barack Obama’s Victory Speech 2008 - Analysis
• Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech and Rhetoric
• Barack Obama's Biography and Political Leadership
• Barack Obama: The Rhetoric of Political Words
• Speech Analysis: Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama
• Barack Obama as a Transformational Leader
• “Dreams From My Father” by Barack Obama
• Inspirational Speech: The Last Lecture by Randolph Pausch
• Argument Analysis on Barbara Jordan’s Watergate Speech
• Severn Suzuki’s Effective Speech
• Analysis of “I Have a Dream “, by Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Rhetoric in American Politics

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Barack Obama — Rhetorical Analysis of Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ Speech

Rhetorical Analysis of Obama's 'A More Perfect Union' Speech

• Categories: Barack Obama

About this sample

Words: 873 |

Published: Oct 4, 2018

Words: 873 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 887 words

3 pages / 1243 words

1 pages / 403 words

1 pages / 393 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Barack Obama

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, is often celebrated for his political accomplishments and leadership skills. However, less well-known is his background as a social worker. Before entering politics, Obama [...]

Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech was delivered in 2008, during his presidential campaign. This speech was significant for many reasons, including its historical context, rhetorical strategies, and impact on American [...]

Barack Obama's inaugural address in 2009 was a historic and monumental moment in American history. As the first African American president, Obama's speech was not only significant for its cultural and social implications, but [...]

As President of the United States, you are expected to carry out a multitude of jobs and duties. Presidents are not only expected to lead the country and its people to succeed but also motivate and encourage them along the way. [...]

As a first-grader in the United States, I witnessed the historic election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. In the days leading up to his Inauguration, my parents were brimming with excitement. As my [...]

President Obama starts with talking about how he has plans for the future; he wants to focus on the future. He mentions how this world is changing very rapidly; it can give more opportunities to people or even widen the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Summary & Analysis of A More Perfect Union

Summary & analysis of barack obama's a more perfect union speech.

The speech titled ‘ A More Perfect Union ‘ was delivered by then-Senator  Barack Obama  on March 18, 2008, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At this pivotal point in his presidential campaign, Obama addressed the controversy surrounding his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial sermons had ignited a national debate about race, patriotism, and Obama’s own beliefs. Senator Barack Obama was a rising star in American politics at the time. By 2008, Obama was a contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States. The speech aimed to address the racial tensions, historical inequalities, and divisive rhetoric that had surfaced during his campaign. It also provided insight into Obama’s personal background, values, and vision for a united America that could transcend its troubled racial history.

A More Perfect Union | Summary & Analysis

Barack Obama’s speech begins with a reflection on a pivotal moment in American history, where a group of men initiated the nation’s experiment with democracy by forming a constitution. It mentions the stain of slavery on the country’s foundation and how this unresolved issue posed a challenge. The passage emphasizes the Constitution’s core ideals of equal citizenship, liberty, justice, and the potential for improvement over time.

Obama shares his unique background as the son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother. He describes the influence of his diverse family members, his education, and his experiences living in different countries. He underscores the concept that the United States allows such diverse stories to exist. Obama discusses his presidential campaign and how he aimed to continue the legacy of working towards a more just, equal, and caring America. It highlights his belief in unity despite differences and his conviction that solving contemporary challenges requires collective efforts. It also addresses how the author’s candidacy garnered support from a variety of Americans, defying racial expectations.

The discussion shifts to the topic of race during the campaign, mentioning instances where the author’s race was questioned. It addresses controversies involving Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary remarks and Obama’s condemnation of them. It explains that while the author disagreed with some of Wright’s views, he also acknowledged Wright’s positive contributions to his faith and community. He reflects on his experiences at Trinity Church and his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He describes the church’s role in merging the stories of ordinary black people with biblical tales, creating a sense of shared history and empowerment. Obama defends his connection with Reverend Wright, acknowledging his imperfections but highlighting the positive impact he had on his faith and life events, and emphasizes the complexity of predominantly black churches like Trinity, where diverse members represent the full spectrum of the black community. He compares his relationship with Reverend Wright to family and asserts that he cannot disown him any more than he can disown his racial heritage.

Obama discusses the issue of race and the importance of addressing it. He argues against simplifying or ignoring the complexities of racial disparities in America. He acknowledges the historical injustices, such as slavery and discrimination, that have contributed to present-day disparities in education, wealth, and opportunities for African Americans. He delves into the anger and resentment that can exist within both the black and white communities, fueled by various factors such as economic struggles, perceptions of privilege, and misunderstandings. Obama suggests that ignoring or condemning these emotions without understanding their roots only widens the divide. He concludes by emphasizing the need to confront these issues honestly and work towards a more unified and just future.

He moves on to discuss how both black anger and white resentment have distracted from addressing underlying issues affecting the middle class, such as corporate greed and political corruption. He acknowledges that racial divisions cannot be easily resolved in a single election cycle, but he firmly believes that America can move beyond its racial wounds and work toward a more perfect union. Obama emphasizes the need to acknowledge and address the legitimate concerns within both the black and white communities. He argues that resentments should not be dismissed, as they are grounded in real grievances. He highlights the importance of self-help and societal change, expressing his belief that progress is possible and encourages a more inclusive approach to problem-solving, advocating for unity across racial lines. Obama discusses the importance of tackling issues like education, healthcare, and jobs together, and emphasizes the interconnectedness of different communities’ struggles.

He challenges the divisive politics of distraction and calls for a collective effort to overcome challenges. He shares the story of Ashley Baia, a young white woman who helped her mother during a difficult time, demonstrating the power of allyship and solidarity across races. He concludes by emphasizing that while this moment may not be perfect, it is where the journey toward a more perfect union begins.

A More Perfect Union | Background

The context of the speech was a  critical moment in Obama’s presidential campaign, marked by a controversy surrounding his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright . Reverend Wright’s controversial sermons, which included statements that were racially charged and critical of the United States, had been widely publicized by the media. These statements led to concerns and criticisms about Obama’s association with Reverend Wright and raised questions about his own beliefs and stance on race. The controversy threatened to undermine Obama’s campaign, and he felt the need to address the issue directly and comprehensively.

Obama  acknowledged the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright’s remarks  and expressed his strong disagreement with some of the statements. He sought to distance himself from the most inflammatory comments while also acknowledging the broader context of Reverend Wright’s decades-long service and the positive contributions of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama provided historical context for the racial divisions in the United States. He acknowledged that racial tensions and inequalities were deeply ingrained in the country’s history and that they could not be easily brushed aside. He discussed the legacy of slavery, segregation, and ongoing discrimination that had shaped the experiences of African Americans. Obama shared his own personal narrative to illustrate the complexity of race in America. He highlighted his mixed-race heritage, his upbringing by a white mother and grandparents, and his experiences of bridging racial divides. He spoke about his relationship with his grandmother, who occasionally made racially insensitive comments, and his wife and daughters, who represented a diverse range of racial backgrounds. 

He  emphasized the importance of finding common ground and unity despite racial differences . He discussed the shared challenges faced by all Americans, such as healthcare, education, and economic opportunities. He argued that addressing these challenges required a collective effort that transcended racial divisions. Obama called for a new approach to addressing racial issues in America. He advocated for an open and honest dialogue about race that acknowledged both the progress made and the work that still needed to be done. He urged Americans to reject divisive politics and work together toward a more just and inclusive society.

Overall, the speech was an  attempt to navigate a delicate and complex issue during Obama’s presidential campaign.  It provided insights into his personal experiences, beliefs, and vision for a more united and inclusive America. The speech is often remembered as a pivotal moment in Obama’s campaign and as an example of his ability to address challenging issues with thoughtfulness and eloquence.

A More Perfect Union | Rhetorical Analysis

The rich and complicated  history of black oratory, religion, and politics , according to Susanna Dilliplane, provided a crucial context for Obama’s speech on March 18 by placing restrictions on what the candidate could say and affecting how his response would be perceived. Obama was faced with a political minefield as a result of these interconnected rhetorical difficulties. According to a close examination of his address, he attempted to overcome the difficulties by constructing his rhetoric around two interconnected ideas that he used to describe American greatness: ‘toward a more perfect union’ and ‘out of many, we are truly one.’ Obama emphasized the importance of the two major topics at the opening of his speech in defining America as a country, his campaign, and himself personally. 

Obama developed a cogent and comprehensive message in which his  destiny as a candidate became intertwined with America’s destiny of realizing its founding ideals  by consistently validating and even embodying (through himself as a person or his campaign) the two themes of ‘toward a more perfect union’ and ‘out of many, we are one.’ The speech primarily strikes a note of consolation by connecting the candidate’s story and that of his race to the longer history of the United States and weaving it into the complex web of racial relations in America as to ‘how racism was permitted to flourish in what was allegedly a democratic union, and how the legacy of that reality has served to divide the country’ eventually making space for the limited reconciliation’. He places his character firmly against the backdrop of how American culture sees himself existing within by arguing that his existence and the greater African American experience are parts of an imperfect organism.

The candidate’s stated  position as a symbol of these essential ideas  makes them an actuality, rather than only a promise, and is a ‘major implication’ of the address from March 18, especially when viewed in the context of Obama’s language as a whole. Voters were given the opportunity to shape history and were given agency, which is significant because it allowed the country to move closer to its ultimate goal of being a perfect union. It was crucial to connect actualized aspirations with unfulfilled promises. Without the second element, the thematic framework’s electoral usefulness was hindered; with it, Obama created a more compelling reason to support his campaign. In conclusion, the fact that his candidacy represented both the achievement of a nation’s fundamental principles and the mechanism through which the nation could continue on its historic march toward fulfilling its promise is what made the theme framework of the March 18 speech such a strong rhetorical instrument. 

According to Raymond Levy, the speech’s bookending of the idea that America must keep its Constitutional promise unites not only its themes of the ongoing process of unity as articulated through oppositional and divisive devices, but also brings the audience together around the idea that each individual must do their part to fulfill the promise of ‘a more perfect union’. Obama creates the sense that the ability to constantly change is its own kind of perfection, or the closest society will get to it and it will take collective will on a small scale to carry out that ideal, just as it took human effort to perfect the union’s abstract goal of equality.

If the speech is seen as a component of a more comprehensive, coherent rhetorical plan, its relevance increases. It wasn’t a stand-alone speech that was unrelated to the rest of the candidate’s talking points; rather, it was a  campaign theme-resonating moment that repeatedly emphasized who and what Obama’s candidacy stood for . Obama was able to integrate his specific message on racial relations with the larger rhetorical frameworks that fueled his successful presidential campaign by giving a significant speech on race whose main themes were echoed throughout his campaign rhetoric. As a result, the simmering problems of racial tensions were incorporated into the larger vision of hope and possibility.

The speech remains significant not only for its impact on the 2008 presidential campaign but also for its  exploration of race, identity, and unity in the United States . Obama’s ability to navigate this sensitive issue with thoughtfulness and grace contributed to his reputation as a skilled communicator and a transformative political figure.

Dilliplane, Susanna. ‘Race, Rhetoric, and Running for President: Unpacking the Significance of Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ Speech.’  Rhetoric and Public Affairs , vol. 15, no. 1, 2012, pp. 127–52. 

Reymond Levy. 2010.  The Unity of Division: A Rhetorical Analysis of Selected Speeches from Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign.  Master’s thesis. Nova Southeastern University. 

The Door in the Wall Summary

Drown summary and analysis of "how to date a browngirl ( blackgirl, whitegirl, or halfie), related articles, building, dwelling, thinking | summary and analysis .

Importance of Physical Activity and Movement

Alexandra | Summary and Analysis

Analysis of with birds you’re never lonely, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• One Friday Morning Summary & Analysis February 29, 2024

Adblock Detected

POSTMODERN CULTURE

• CALLS FOR PAPERS
• SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Under the Bus: A Rhetorical Reading of Barack Obama’s “More Perfect Union”

Laura jones (bio) louisiana state university [email protected].

Abstract   Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech, delivered during the 2008 presidential campaign in response to controversy surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, responds to a split and often conflicting need both to reassure voters and to challenge conventional notions of identity. In doing so, the language of the speech simultaneously deploys and undermines the liberal models of subjectivity to which we are accustomed in American political rhetoric. While the resulting aporia have been read by some as throwing subjects (like Reverend Wright) “under the bus,” they can also be understood as enactments of ethical subjectivity, especially in the terms of Emmanuel Levinas’s thought. The article suggests that Obama’s speech can serve as a study in the uneasy and generative coexistence of Levinasian ethics and liberal political thought, one that reveals liberalism’s incongruities and asks listeners to imagine social relations otherwise.  

Barack Obama’s place in the pantheon of American rhetoric was secure the moment he finished what has come to be called “the race speech.” Pundits compared him to King and to Lincoln even more freely than usual; over a million viewers watched it online in a day; newspapers reprinted the transcript; even rivals conceded its rhetorical brilliance. 1 Alongside such praise, however, ran a critique of the way Obama treated the subjects of his speech: dozens of commentators accused the candidate of throwing his grandmother, the Reverend Wright, and the nation itself “under the bus.” In this reading, the speech was little more than a ruthless bid for political self-preservation, and it wasn’t only Obama’s political opponents who took this view. Although arch-conservatives like Ann Coulter were among those who deployed the violent metaphor (“Throw Grandma Under the Bus” headlined her column the day following the speech), it was Houston Baker Jr. who offered perhaps the most pointed version of it: “In brief, Obama’s speech was a pandering disaster that threw, once again, his pastor under the bus.” 2 Though the victims of the figurative bus vary, the imagery is consistent. In fact, the phrase was ubiquitous in the months following the speech, prompting one columnist to suggest that it was “getting crowded under Obama’s bus” (Moran). 3 Reactions were distinct and extreme enough that media columnist Howard Kurtz wondered “whether these pundits were watching the same speech.” 4   This question is worth considering in earnest, for the exigency of the address demands at least two competing trajectories: on the one hand, Obama pointed beyond what he calls a “racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years,” requiring him to interrogate deep assumptions beneath American identity politics. On the other, as a campaign speech, the occasion called for the kind of traditional, reassuring language that might ease the minds of voters made anxious by the racially-charged debate surrounding the infamous sound bites from Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons at Trinity United Methodist Church. In simultaneously challenging and reassuring listeners about race in the United States, the language splits the speech between traditional liberal discourse and tropes that undermine the most fundamental tenets of that discourse. It is the kind of aporetic moment that Emmanuel Levinas theorizes as constituting the subject: the speech reenacts the encounter that founds subjectivity by calling it into question; it is a moment characterized not by the reciprocity and equality imagined in the liberal social contract, but rather, by surplus, asymmetry, and aporia.   Far from shedding the vocabulary of liberal political thought, Obama frames his approach using familiar figures of identity politics and liberal universalism: repeated calls for unity are among the most obvious of such moments. The assertion that “we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren,” rests on both an identity-based model of subjectivity and a progressive view of history. When “we” come together to move toward that better future, in this mode, we do so as autonomous individuals who remain defined by our ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other categories of identity. Thus, as Obama calls for the nation to work together to solve “problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian,” it is understood that people will do so as subjects who are, precisely, black or white or Latino or Asian. Reading the speech exclusively in this mode gives one the sense that, as one journalist suggests, Obama is reassuring voters that racism “does exist. . . but mostly as a memory,” or that “white people” are “off the hook” for past injustices ( Hendricks 175 ; Mansbach 69 ).   Perhaps this is the pandering detected by Baker and others. Indeed, to read the speech in the mode of identity, where repetition is imitative, is to find that it parrots messages of American exceptionalism, that it might be understood as little more than a well-delivered “moment of mimicry,” as Baker calls it. An alternate reading, in which these repetitions are not mimicry but performative iterations, one that considers substitutions, contradictions, and the anachronic treatment of history, reveals the way in which the speech simultaneously deploys and undermines the model of subjectivity to which we are accustomed in American political rhetoric. Read in this way, the subjectivity that critics locate “under the bus” is not so much run over in the speech as it is called into question in a way that Levinas would recognize as profoundly ethical.   By constructing subjects that push against conventional assumptions of liberal political rhetoric, the speech invites us to step outside the pragmatist mode of reading that is conventionally applied to Obama’s thought. 5 The recurring preoccupation with the relation to the other invites a reading that takes into account what Levinas names the face-to-face relation, a metaphysical concern that invisibly but powerfully impacts the social and political relations of any moment. Using this model to comment on such relations is neither simple nor unproblematic, for Levinas has been critiqued alternately for failing to comment on social questions and for his patriarchal theology and Eurocentric orientation. Other scholars, however, have productively linked his thought to questions of social and political power. Jeffrey Nealon builds just such a bridge by theorizing “alterity politics” as a performative alternative to identity politics that addresses the problems of lack and resentment embedded in the latter construction of difference. Nealon’s work reveals how Levinas’s ethics can and do function in political discourse, and Obama’s navigation of the competing rhetorical demands on the occasion of “A More Perfect Union” is a study in the uneasy and generative coexistence of this ethics and liberal political thought. On this level, Obama’s speech—like Nealon’s work on Levinas—reveals liberalism’s incongruities and asks listeners to imagine social relations otherwise.  

Identity and Alterity

  The subjectivity theorized by Levinas is paradoxical: its relation to the other at once makes the subject possible and renders autonomy impossible. Any clear separation between subject and object is factitious, because we are infinitely responsible for the other in a double sense: our subjectivity is a response to the other’s call, and as a result, we owe everything, including our identity, to the other. The self that underpins liberal political thought, on the other hand, resides in an ego that not only imagines itself to be sovereign, but operates in an imperialist and procrustean mode, appropriating otherness by comprehending it in terms of the horizon of self, always amputating what is incomprehensible or unassimilable. If I approach others in this mode, “their alterity is thereby reabsorbed into my own identity as a thinker or a possessor” ( Levinas, Totality 33 ; original emphasis). Moreover, because we are responsible to the other, we can never achieve the stability sought in this mode, premised as it is upon a violation of its founding otherness. The completion, the self-identity that we imagine to be essential, the “regulatory ideal of complete subjective freedom,” in Nealon’s words, remains unrealized, so our debt to the other must be understood as a failure of independence (7). To be sure, Levinas’s reimagined view of subjectivity is not without violence: to be called into subjectivity is, he insists, a traumatic event characterized by an imbalance of power; I become hostage to the other. The difference, for him, is that I am no longer striving for autonomy, and thus intersubjectivity is not failure. The subject is other than whole not because of a lack, but because of a surplus—it exceeds the bounds of the said and of the categories by which identities must be defined. In the realm of the performative and variable saying, a subject can never be a simple, self-identical, bounded entity. Obama’s language points toward this kind of subjectivity when he asserts that “this nation is more than the sum of its parts” (my emphasis).   Surplus, an inevitable aspect of subjectivity from a Levinasian perspective, constitutes a failure for the conventional liberal subject. Nealon calls it an “excess-that-is-lack,” one that prevents the subject from achieving self-identical wholeness, a condition for which s/he blames the other (13). The ensuing Nietzschean resentment renders identity politics an “inevitable social and political failure,” as in the case of the sometimes hysterical racially-charged rhetoric that prompted Obama’s speech ( Nealon 4 ; original emphasis). Obama characterizes it as part of a “a racial stalemate,” implying that the way in which Americans have approached race in the United States has not only failed to bridge divides, it has kept American society from making any movement at all. It has, to paraphrase his own metaphor, blocked our “path to understanding.” This is a failure of identity politics that is made inevitable by the very assumption that founds such a politics: subjects who are defined in terms of identity categories are forced to approach the other in a way that attempts the impossible task of containing his or her alterity, of violently reducing his or her otherness to a “subset of the same,” a homogenous category that is defined in relation to a normative center. This identity-based approach to difference is what has characterized the dominant conversation on race, as Obama himself contends: “We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news.” The alternative suggested by Obama is in the same Levinasian vein as Nealon’s: “an ethical alterity politics that considers identity as beholden and responsive first and foremost to the other” ( Nealon 2 ; original emphasis).   This politics shifts its focus away from an ontological attempt to pin identity down and towards a focus on the ethical effects and exigencies produced by difference. Nealon asserts that:  

The stake of the subject and its ethical force remains a question of effects: the crucial question is not primarily a hermeneutic one, but rather a performative one—not What does it mean? but rather What can it do, how can it respond (otherwise)? (170)

Such a shift from what something means to what it can do and, importantly, how it responds is one way of understanding Obama’s treatment of race and racism in the speech through Levinasian responsibility. He doesn’t ignore questions of hermeneutics or ontology, insisting that white Americans must acknowledge that oppression “does not just exist in the minds of black people” and “that the legacy of discrimination—and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past—are real and must be addressed.” In the last phrase, Obama plants one foot in identity before stepping outside of it: he asserts that discrimination is real to begin with, answering the need for social recognition that lies beneath identity politics. However, by adding that “it must be addressed. . . not just with words but with deeds,” he figures discrimination not merely as a fact but as a call that demands a response, one that makes us responsible—an echo of the face-to-face encounter that founds the subject. Such an encounter will recur in the speech, as I will address below, as the originary moment of national subjectivity.

  Obama’s pragmatic concern with effects is characteristic: asserting that there is anger at the root of Reverend Wright’s most controversial comments as well as the explosive public reaction to them, he reminds us that such anger “is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems.” This critique of Wright takes little account of the content or meaning of Wright’s remarks; the first question at issue is not whether anger like Wright’s is valid, but whether its effects are desirable, whether it serves to alleviate oppression. He acknowledges “a similar anger. . . within segments of the white community,” that “they don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” Critics have read this comparison of black to white anger as a leveling of difference, seeing it as an assertion that the history of overt and deeply-entrenched structural racism is “similar” to hurt feelings about being called “privileged.” Read this way, as a comparison on the level of ontology, it is understandably seen as “disingenuous, even irresponsible,” as pandering to white voters ( Mansbach 75 ). It is worth noting, however, that the speech does not compare these angers on the basis of validity or depth, but rather on the basis of their effects and, most interestingly for my purposes, their shared assumptions about subjectivity. Obama is explicit about the former: white resentment, justified or not, has “helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.” Its effects are equivalent to those he attributes to Wright’s anger: it obscures one’s vision, spawning (among other things) “talk show hosts and conservative commentators” whose appeals have much the same rhetorical effect as the particularly incendiary comments made by Reverend Wright.   Even as the effects of both groups’ feelings are compared, however, the language carefully preserves a distinction between the root feelings. Describing the effects of injustice on Reverend Wright and his generation, Obama uses the word “anger” exclusively. As he focuses on white Americans, what he initially calls “a similar anger” is immediately replaced by “resentment.” In subsequent paragraphs, the comparison is between black anger and white resentment : “Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze.” To read the two as synonyms, as we would have to in order to conclude that Obama levels the difference between the experiences of African Americans and white Americans, is to miss a key distinction between anger and resentment: one is a response to injustice, where the other, resentment, is “anger at the other.” The latter is, in Obama’s logic (and in Nealon’s), rooted in a mistaken view of subjectivity. The mistake is precisely the conventional notion that the subject is finite, autonomous and exhaustible, rather than excessive, intersubjective, and endlessly performed. Ironically, Reverend Wright’s “profound mistake,” according to Obama, is similar to that of resentful white citizens: “He spoke as if our society were static,” mistaking ongoing iteration and revision for repeated failure, a “profoundly distorted view of this country.” Among the distortions that follow is that “opportunity comes to be seen as a zero-sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.”   Obama offers a corrective to the zero-sum formulation with another lexical shift: rather than rejecting it outright, he reminds us that “most working-and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race,” and he performs a substitution: “their experience is the immigrant experience.” By replacing an identity category, race, with “immigrant experience,” he offers what Deleuze and Guattari might call a line of flight for the “white” subject (or, at least, for the working-and-middle-class white American subject), freeing it from the totalizing category of race. This could justifiably be read as letting white Americans off the hook, of course, and it is also yet another pragmatic move away from ontology—shifting focus away from what a people putatively are (white) and toward what they have done (immigrated). Running alongside and perhaps counter to that, however, is a Levinasian current. Where “white” functions, like other racial categories, to efface difference and create the illusion of a homogenous group, “immigrant experience” highlights what had been concealed: the trace of the uncontainable saying within the said that characterizes Levinasian subjectivity. In other words, the phrase points to far more than it can actually hold: a signified that is more vast and varied than any signifier could contain. “Immigrant” is a more obviously diverse group than “white Americans,” and “experience” points to an infinite singularity that resists being totalized. The phrase gestures towards the radical unknowability of every “other” we might approach—though still functioning within the realm of the said, as all utterances must, it does so more transparently. A move towards the saying, Levinas asserts, “absolves me of all identity” and in doing so, serves as “a de-posing or de-situating of the ego,” creating a space for alterity ( Otherwise 50). To thus unseat the stable, comprehensible identity imagined to be at the core of the ego points to a profoundly unstable subjectivity that, for Levinas, makes the ethical subject possible. For Obama, it offers an alternative to the zero-sum game. “This nation is more than the sum of its parts,” not a totality in which gains in one area must be offset by losses in another; it is no known quantity. Because the national subject is characterized by surplus, “your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams.” Ethics is possible precisely because the subject—whether the national subject or the individual—is not reducible to categories or sums. In this face-to-face relation, we cannot know the other, yet it calls us to respond, and for that we are enduringly indebted.  

The Individual Subject

  Obama’s reading of the national motto offers another glimpse of the unruly subject lurking in his speech—even in the most seemingly conventional trope. “Out of many, we are truly one,” he offers, later referring to this as the “message of unity” that underpins the campaign. His invocation of E Pluribus Unum points most immediately, of course, to the Enlightenment era in which it was first attached to the seal of the United States, and thus evokes precisely the self-identical, autonomous subject I am claiming he points away from. At the same time, the possibility of such a subject is undermined from the start; the unum that comes out of the pluribus is excessive, “more than the sum of its parts.” It conjures up the image of a seamless unity—as perhaps the founders envisioned—even as it evokes a subject that is founded in multiplicity, enacting contradictions and exceeding its own boundaries. Viewed against the expectations of liberal subjectivity, this is a flaw or a failure—but Obama’s language figures contradiction instead as a necessary and inevitable part of subjectivity. In doing so, listeners are reassured that we Americans are all one, even as Obama presents individual subjects, one after another, that are multiple and contradictory.   He begins with himself, with origins that are irreducibly multiple: “I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas,” reminding listeners that his experience includes both elite schools and an impoverished nation. He presents himself as a subject that is continually in flux, shaped as it is by experiences and encounters like the one he describes upon joining the Trinity congregation: “I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories, of survival, and freedom, and hope—became our story, my story.” The boundaries between subjects—”ordinary black people,” Biblical figures, and Obama himself—dissolve as their stories “merge,” and his identity shifts through religious conversion. 6 This fluid identity and its diffuse genealogies defy categorization in ways that test the limits of discourse—as he points out, “At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either ‘too black’ or ‘not black enough.'” To some, his current affluence and Harvard education make him elite, while others construct him as the son of a single mother, a former community organizer with roots in the working class. The way in which Obama’s identity continues to be raised as a question defies reason and evidence; perhaps these intractable doubts offer a glimpse into the effects of an identity that very obviously exceeds categories of race, nationality and class. If demands for his birth certificate gained more media coverage than they seemed to merit, might this be understood as a compulsion to pin down his unruly identity in order to rescue conventional assumptions about subjectivity? We might also consider such intrusive questions as echoes of the face-to-face encounter, which Levinas locates prior to society and history, at a pre-conscious level where “a calling into question of the same . . . is brought about by the other” ( Totality 43). One’s identity is called into question even before one’s subjectivity is formed, and the question is never off the table: “The I is not a being that always remains the same, but is the being whose existing consists in identifying itself” ( Levinas, Totality 36 ). In this view, questions could never be fully answered—not even by a long-form birth certificate—yet this does not indicate a failure or a fraud. This aggressive interrogation inaugurates the subject, again and again, for it is our response that constitutes our very subjectivity. 7 The debt we owe to the questioner is “the essential, primary and fundamental structure of subjectivity” ( Levinas, Ethics 95 ).   It is this same kind of indebted, intersubjective, and contradictory subjectivity that structures Obama’s descriptions of his grandmother and Reverend Wright. The former is a subject not in spite of, but because of the fact that she lovingly raised a mixed-race child even as she “uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made [Obama] cringe.” She is indebted to both her grandson and the people she feared. The same is true of Reverend Wright; he too “contains within him the contradictions . . . of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.” It is his community, described in the previous paragraphs as encompassing “the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger,” that makes Wright the subject that he is. He, too, is the overflowing “one” rendered “out of many.” Obama’s E Pluribus Unum theme invites us to consider others as the origin of American subjectivities without straying outside the bounds of safe political tropes. It hints at, without fully enacting, a shift from a worldview that is centered on the stable self to an alterity ethics in which indebtedness and contradiction are irreversible—they are not a symptom or injury, but a foundation that makes justice possible.   The speech concludes with a disconcertingly simple story about a campaign organizer named Ashley, a young white woman working for the campaign in a primarily African American community. The story of Ashley’s effort to support her struggling mother appears at first to be more heartwarming platitude than profound meditation on otherness. As the kind of pseudo-personal story that politicians roll out by the dozen, it is a repetition of a familiar trope. In this repetition, however, there is a difference worth noting. The story ultimately points us not toward the same—not toward Ashley as a Joe-Sixpack kind of stand-in for the listener—but toward that call of the other that Levinas would identify as the originary experience of subjectivity. At a roundtable she organized, we’re told, participants shared their reasons for attending. They named specific social issues, for the most part, except for the last speaker:  

Finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. . . . He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”   “I’m here because of Ashley.” Now, by itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough.

Ashley’s invitation to the round table is only the most literal reenactment of the Levinasian cal l of the other; when it is cited and repeated by Obama, it functions on other levels. “I am here because of Ashley”: Because of the other, I am here. Obama repeats the phrase, and as this is a speech, lacking textual markers such as quotation marks, it is unclear to the listener whether he is again quoting the man’s words, or whether he is telling us that he himself is also “here” because of Ashley. The phrase becomes more than the recognition of a specific other named Ashley. To paraphrase Levinas’s fitting formulation, it describes a moment during which the subject’s spontaneity is called into question by the presence of the other ( Totality 43). Alterity is not a choice freely made, for if we are to imagine that we can choose it, we are still starting with “I.” It is instead an involuntary response to the call of the other. I am here not of my own volition; I owe my subjecthood to the other. Obama’s phrase, doubly highlighted by repetition and by a simplicity that contrasts with the syntax of the bulk of the speech, bears a trace of the radically unsignifiable encounter that underpins consciousness ( Levinas, Otherwise 159 ). For both Obama and Levinas it is an originary moment: it is “where the perfection begins” ( Obama, “A More Perfect Union” ); it is the “structure upon which all the other structures rest” ( Levinas, Totality 79 ). In establishing it as a kind of origin, the relationship between Ashley and the nameless man unhinges time—the “perfection” called for by the constitution “begins” in a twenty-first century encounter. Obama situates this moment not as an effect of the Declaration of Independence but as an anachronic condition of its possibility. History, here, is no longer the story of linear progress—and the nation that emerges from it is a subject that is just as contradictory and unruly as the individual.

The National Subject: A more perfect union

  Where the encounter between Ashley and the nameless man offers insight into the individual subject, Obama reads the Constitution for a view of the national subject, which he invokes by opening with a quote from the Constitution: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” As a sentence that most American children memorize without even trying, the quote teeters on the edge of threadbare cliché. Ultimately, though, it does much more work than it appears to do; the fact that we recognize the phrase is essential to its operation as a (re)iteration of the performative utterance that, in some sense at least, brought this nation into being. Obama tells us that these words “launched” an experiment; they “made real” the Declaration of Independence. As “launch,” the Constitution is originary; as the “making real” of a prior declaration, it is itself a repetition. What happens when those founding words are repeated again , performed again, as they are in Obama’s first line? The logic of performativity insists that each time the Constitution is quoted, it is not merely a repetition of the words written in 1787; it is a singular event in its own right. It is every bit as much an act of nation-building when it is quoted as when it was put on parchment, for the nation that came into being in 1787 was not, as we will be forcefully reminded in the speech, an unambiguous entity already filled with meaning. Obama’s opening gambit is to engage in a bit of nation-building, highlighting the fact that the nation is an effect of such performative responses; that it comprises a process of perfecting that begins in 1787 and in 2008; that it is a chain of effects without origin. If the Constitution’s work was to “make real” a declaration, then the work in repeating it is likewise to make real: to enact, and in so doing, to (re)make reality—to perform American nationhood and to revise it. Obama has set the terms and the stakes of the speech: more than an attempt to mollify critics, it is a response not merely to a particular controversy but to a Levinasian call; it is an enactment, and simultaneously a revision, of the nation itself. In and of itself this is not unique: national subjectivity is rhetorically at stake every time a speaker invokes founding documents. Here, however, the American subject is directed beyond what Levinas would call a totalizing ego towards seeing itself as an ethical subject that, like the rhetor himself, is (and must be) continually called into question. The speech’s opening recitation of history enacts a process by which the national subject is “a being whose existing consists in identifying itself” over and over again.   The opening quote promises, and demands, a performance. Obama stops short of completing the sentence: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” He repeats a fragment, an incomplete thought. The phrase operates as a promise in multiple senses: most obviously, it opens the founding document that functions as a promise among citizens. Cited here as an incomplete thought, it also grammatically enacts a promise. Obama opens his speech by doubling the opening promise of the U.S. Constitution. The role of such a “prefacing promise,” as Nealon calls it, varies according to the discourse in which it is framed. In the mode of identity, such promises “are invariably broken because the later materialization of the promised deed will always produce a remainder. The deed will always exceed (and thereby fall short of simply fulfilling) the original promise” ( Nealon 13 ). Approaching the promise from the perspective of performative subjectivity, on the other hand, opens up the “positive logic of the promise”—the one that moves beyond identity’s inevitable lack (or excess-as-lack). Each promise is an act that promises another act (which will, in turn, promise another). It sets in motion a chain of performances, of responses “to the other—for the other” (Derrida, qtd. in Nealon 14 ). In fact, Obama’s opening fragment doubles that promise: not only does he repeat the promise of the preamble, he also enacts it grammatically by editing it into a sentence fragment. Like the Constitution itself, the quote is unfinished; both promise (and demand) further performance. The effects of such an opening multiply from this point. The first eleven words of the Constitution, reenacted, invoke the ethics and logic of performativity as a response to alterity: they set in motion a chain of promises and actions, ensuring that the American nation will never achieve plenitude of meaning but will be forever reinvented by repeated performances, repeated responses to the others that inhabit “We the people.”   The impossibility of plenitude that underpins performative logic is emphasized in the object of the opening phrase: “A more perfect union” is not the same as “a perfect union,” any more than the verb “to perfect” is the same as the adjective “perfect.” The adjective implies completion and stasis; the verb, process and movement. “More” leaves the phrase permanently open (and some would say grammatically fallacious): it is not simply a perfect union, but a more perfect one that we the people seek. It is what we are destined forever to seek, for whatever state of perfection we might reach, the preamble will always ask for “more”; it will repeat, keeping the totality of “perfect” perpetually out of reach. At the same time, the word itself offers a grammatical choice between the adjective that describes a state from which we will always fall short or the verb that describes our ongoing task. Obama consistently uses the verb form; moreover, he announces this choice: “This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.” In a politics of identity, we are striving for perfection , and each time we fall short (which is every time) we have failed. Perfecting, by contrast, points to the performative mode of becoming, in which the process is what we are. We “form” the “more perfect union.” It is almost, but not exactly, the American identity—not in the form of a goal or conclusion, but as a perpetually open question. The ethics at work here leaves “the foundation of the subject always in question, always open to another performative call or response” ( Nealon 169 ). The nation’s subjectivity lies in asking repeatedly, how can we perform ourselves as Americans in order to perfect our union? It is more verb than noun, a question rather than an answer. It calls us to the pragmatist process of perfecting our union even as it reminds us that this call is not one to which we can spontaneously assent or independently choose to answer—instead, it is an iteration of the deeply embedded metaphysical encounter with the other that initiates our national consciousness by compelling us to respond.   It is in this sense that Levinas asserts that the subject’s spontaneity is challenged by alterity. What appears to be a self-generated, original phenomenon is revealed to be a response or a repetition. In another deceptively simple move immediately after the opening quote, Obama again calls the spontaneity of the nation into question and reveals it to be one effect in a chain, an ongoing performance rather than an entity founded at a single point in time. In the second line of the speech, Obama orients himself by noting that the Philadelphia convention, like the words he has quoted in the first line, took place “Two hundred and twenty one years ago.” There is of course nothing original about rhetorically measuring the distance in time between the present moment and the founding of the nation, about drawing a self-aggrandizing line from the “founding fathers” to oneself. The task of tracing such a line through time is, however, ultimately rendered impossible by the speech, and again we have an opening towards alterity. “Two hundred and twenty one years ago”: It is hard not to recall Lincoln’s “Four score and seven years ago,” another overwhelmingly familiar opening phrase, an allusion that is not likely to be lost on listeners. It is, then, recognizable as a repetition of one moment that itself evokes another: Obama points to the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln points to the Constitutional Convention. 8 Again we are denied a precise origin and instead directed to a chain of effects, more specifically to three moments in time: March 2008, November 1863, and September 1787. What appears to bolster the myth of the founding fathers-a shared and unitary past in which the “city on a hill” that we still inhabit was spontaneously built—breaks itself apart into three moments, three nation-building performances. The moments are not points along a timeline, though. Instead, they break history apart through what Derrida might call a “citational doubling,” a repetition that splits that which it repeats (“Signature Event Context” 17). At the heart of each of the three texts is the open question of union , always left unresolved. The layered allusion suggests that an undivided, seamless union has never existed: in 1787 the Declaration of Independence was “made real” but left unfinished because of, as Obama will point out, the slavery question; in November 1863, Lincoln repeated the Declaration’s “all men are created equal” even as the civil war raised the question of “whether . . . any nation so conceived . . . can long endure”; in March 2008, Obama repeats the Constitution’s performance as part of the ritual of election, having been forced to address the divisive issue of race in a way no candidate in recent memory has. Just as time splits, so does each nation-building repetition; if we were attempting a linear journey through history, we would, with each repetition, encounter a fork in the road. Our subjectivity as a nation cannot be traced so easily.  

History Unhinged

There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. -Ibsen

  Obama’s view of history typically falls into the progressive narrative of inevitable improvement that much liberal political thought takes for granted. He characterizes it early in the speech, for example, as a “long march. . . . towards a better future.” However, just as the liberal subject encounters aporia in the rhetoric, so does the U.S. American narrative of progress. The encounter with race, which demands an encounter with slavery, inevitably points to the dilemma at the heart of the nation, a question that both founds and undermines the national subject. In the discourse of Obama’s campaign and presidency, race and slavery are specters—they are ever present but rarely manifested. As he points out, race lurked in the background in the early stages of the campaign, when the public resisted “the temptation to view candidacy through a purely racial lens”; eventually, it came into the foreground as questions about Obama’s race and the role it played in his successes were asked and as the “firestorm” around Reverend Wright precipitated this speech. Turning to Faulkner, Obama suggests that the nation itself is similarly—in fact, far more profoundly—haunted: “‘The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.'” Moreover, as the past is, in fact, present, “we do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.” As with the opening words of the speech, Obama offers a quote followed by a standard rhetorical move (here, invoking racial injustice by disclaiming the intent to invoke it). And as before, this repetition enacts an important difference.   The figure of the past that is not past, a kind of ghost, is a figure of profound otherness —Derrida theorizes it as an alterity that cannot be erased or incorporated into a stable self, for its very existence undermines the notion of a boundary between self and other. The ghost is a “non-present present,” a “being-there of an absent or departed one” ( Derrida, Specters 6 ). Such survival of the past into the present can often be traced back to an omission, which Derrida illustrates with a passage in which Valéry quotes himself, omitting a single sentence. Derrida asks, “Why this omission, the only one?. . . Where did [the name of Marx] go?. . . The name of the one who disappeared must have gotten inscribed someplace else” ( Specters 5). Haunting, here, is a recurrence of that which has been omitted, and it is just such a recurrence that destabilizes the subjectivity of the nation in Obama’s speech. In this case, the specter arises from the most glaring omission from the Declaration of Independence: slavery. The paragraph that was famously edited out of Jefferson’s original draft condemned it as a violation of the “most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people.” The final version, of course, makes no mention of slavery, and the Constitution, far from condemning it, codified and arguably enshrined it. The erasure, then, did not secure the issue’s disappearance, as even Jefferson seems to have anticipated in his reflection on the changes made to his draft: “the sentiments of men are known not only by what they receive, but what they reject also” (341). What Jefferson did not know, and what Derrida, Obama, and two hundred subsequent years of nationhood would bear out, is that “the name of the one who disappeared must have gotten inscribed someplace else”: that the contradiction of chattel slavery in a nation founded on democratic ideals would turn up insistently, haunting the nation, endlessly calling it into question. In a passage that could just as easily be about slavery in the United States, Derrida describes how the specter of communism haunted Europe to this effect:  

[I]t does not come to, it does not happen to, it does not befall, one day, Europe, as if the latter, at a certain moment of its history, had begun to suffer from a certain evil, to let itself be inhabited in its inside, that is, haunted by a foreign guest. Not that that guest is any less a stranger for having always occupied the domesticity of Europe. But there was no inside, there was nothing inside before it. ( Specters 4)

  In this vein, slavery was never something inflicted upon the nation; this ghost, this haunting other, was always present—its return in Obama’s speech as well as in so many conversations about race in the United States reveals the fact that there is no inside to the national subject from which slavery can be excluded; there is “nothing before it.” This quintessential “other” of American ideals is as much the “self” of the nation as are the founding documents themselves—an insight captured by Toni Morrison in her descriptions of an Africanist presence in the nation’s founding principles: “The concept of freedom did not emerge in a vacuum. Nothing highlighted freedom—if it did not in fact create it—like slavery” (38). Slavery, Morrison suggests, created freedom even as it undermined it, much as the other both inaugurates the self and puts it in question. Slavery, in other words, made the Declaration possible and forever unstable. The “self” of the nation is, like our individual subjectivities, utterly beholden to the other; it will never be spontaneous or self-identical. In his discussion of slavery, Obama calls attention to that familiar contradiction at the heart of the nation, a contradiction that is most often cited as evidence of the nation’s failure to fulfill its promise—an indelible “stain,” as he will initially phrase it. Such a view takes as its baseline the possibility of a nation without such contradictions—the same kind of goal for subjectivity that, being unattainable, guarantees failure and resentment.   The speech intervenes in this conundrum with a shift in metaphor across iterations. Early in the speech, Obama claims that the Declaration of Independence was “ultimately unfinished” because “it was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery” (par. 3). The specter of slavery disrupted completion, then; the ghost, as past that will not pass, prevents full presence. It renders time “off its hinges” ( Derrida, Specters 77 ). Obama’s figure of unhinged time here is stalemate: slavery was “a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to . . . leave any final resolution to future generations.” Stalemate functions as an interruption of movement-in-time, a deferral that causes a task in the present to fall behind, or outside, the time that we imagine marching towards future. Alternatively, we might understand stalemate as a kind of excess that disrupts completion, as over-satiety: an excess of meaning that renders a thing impossible to finish or to close. It is a moment in which contradiction cannot be contained in a consensus. In Levinas’s terms it is a moment that reveals the impossibility of enclosing the saying within the said ; it bears a trace of the encounter with the wholly other. For Obama, the moment of ratification was a moment of stalemate rather than of completion. If it were a fully present, complete meaning that we were yearning for, the Constitution would have to be considered a failure. If this is not the case, it is because performative becoming is more important than being in that American text: the document is important because it is unfinished. It was not a failure: it was a deferral, a promise, one effect in a long chain. The signers bequeathed the task of a “final resolution to future generations” ( Obama, “A More Perfect Union” ). This is what allows the document to reach into the future even though, in the past, it became mired in the politics of its slaveholding present. In his reading of the Constitution, Obama figures this lack of full presence not as a lack per se, but as generative force. He describes it as calling “Americans in successive generations . . . to do their part—through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience.” In fact, as he tells us in the following paragraph, it is the very force that generated his own campaign. So this haunted stalemate that prevented full realization of meaning cuts across time, generating (as Obama notes) civil war, civil disobedience, and struggles for civil rights: all disturbances within the civic subjectivity, a chain of effects that highlights a profound alterity within the nation which, in fact, is the subject. How recognizable, after all, would the U.S. be without Gettysburg, Thoreau, King? Viewing the nation as an effect of destabilizing performances and iterations, however, undermines Obama’s first figure of slavery as indelible stain or “original sin.” It is at this point that the metaphor shifts in an important direction.   In his first metaphor, slavery is “stain” and “original sin”; both indicate a fixed, unitary, indelible mark. Obama’s use of original sin alludes to a fall away from “original holiness and justice,” as the Catholic catechism phrases it; it suggests humanity’s imperfection or lack. The Bible’s fallen humanity is strikingly similar to the figure of the subject in identity politics: we are constituted as subjects in terms of how far we fall short of what we wish to be—whether what we wish for is original holiness or inclusion in a normative center. If slavery is the United States’s “original sin,” then does its nationhood exist in the gap between the promises of the founding documents and the nation’s actuality? Is American subjectivity one founded upon lack? Perhaps we are back to what I’m claiming we have been pointed away from: the discourse of identity. We are not left in this aporia, though, for the “original sin” metaphor unravels a few paragraphs later when held up against a second metaphor: slavery as “inheritance.” If slavery is an American inheritance, it could be read as a kind of inescapable original sin that dooms Americans to perpetual insufficiency and resentment. Yet this is precisely how Obama characterizes Reverend Wright’s mistaken view, again, “That he spoke as if our society was static.” The inheritance invoked here has more in common with Derrida’s reading of the concept, one that refutes stasis:  

An inheritance is never gathered together, it is never one with itself. Its presumed unity, if there is one, can consist only in the injunction to reaffirm by choosing . ‘One must’ means one must filter, sift, criticize, one must sort out several different possibles that inhabit the same injunction. And inhabit it in a contradictory fashion around a secret. If the readability of a legacy were given, natural, transparent, univocal, if it did not call for and at the same time defy interpretation, we would never have anything to inherit from it. We would be affected by it as by a cause—natural or genetic. One always inherits from a secret–which says ‘read me, will you ever be able to do so?’ ( Specters 16)

This inheritance is not indelible stain but ongoing task, a kind of call to responsibility, “never one with itself,” like the Constitution, and like American national subjectivity. In this view, the coexistence of slavery and a proclamation of the inalienable rights of man renders fundamental questions undecidable, but it does not lead inevitably to failure. Multiple, contradictory possibilities constitute an inheritance, just as they do subjectivity. Inheritance in this sense echoes the way Obama gathers the experiences of “ordinary black people” and Biblical heroes into his own subjectivity as discussed above. As in that case, the boundaries between subjects are permeable, if not illusory. The distinction between the inside and the outside of the subject disintegrates in the implications of the metaphor: the oppression that we as Americans grapple with in our history comes from the inside, so from where did the nation “inherit” slavery, if not from itself? Inheritance, as a destabilizing force, calls for and defies interpretation, requiring continual “inhabitation” or performance. It does not guarantee failure but neither does it let the nation “off the hook,” for it is a task, a demand to continue the repetitions that transform, the reinventions of subjectivity that are at the bottom of an ethics of alterity. What Americans have inherited is responsibility, a call for, in Obama’s words, “a union that could and should be perfected over time.”

  If Americans were to aim for final perfection, for contained identity in the model of Enlightenment subjectivity, then a speech highlighting the haunted nature of American subjectivity, the impossibility of it ever being self-identical indeed throws not just two individuals, but the entire nation under the bus. Yet the language of the speech reveals that the ethic at work here is not one of the blame or betrayal that such a metaphor invokes. While we cannot escape their violence, while we are indeed held hostage by them, the specters that we have inherited do not doom us to perpetual insufficiency; rather, they demand repeated performance, iteration that changes that which it repeats. In doing so, they call the nation into being. Obama’s speech enacts this very process of iteration: it simultaneously deploys liberal political discourse in a safe and instrumentalist way even as it calls into question the fundamental assumptions of that discourse. It is this aporetic performance that opens a space that, as one journalist hypothesizes, “has never been opened before” in mainstream U.S. political discourse (Quinn). In this view, Obama’s performative ethics functions not as a condemnation of shortcomings but as an acknowledgment of the conditions that make justice possible. “It is,” Obama assures us, pointing at once to our past, present, and our future, “where we start.”  

The author wishes to thank Brooke Rollins for her support and guidance in revising this article.

Works Cited

• Ambinder, Marc. “Speechwriter of One.” The Atlantic . The Atlantic Monthly Group, 18 Mar.2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
• Baker, Houston, Jr. “What Should Obama do about Reverend Jeremiah Wright?” Salon.com . Salon Media Group, 29 Apr. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
• Coulter, Ann. “Throw Grandma Under the Bus.” Humanevents.com . Eagle Publishing, 19 Mar.2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
• Derrida, Jacques. “Remarks on Deconstruction and Pragmatism.” Deconstruction and Pragmatism . Ed. Chantal Mouffe. New York: Routledge, 1996. 79-90. Print.
• ———. “Signature Event Context.” Limited, Inc . Trans. Alan Bass. New York: Northwestern UP, 1988. Print.
• ———. Specters of Marx . Trans. Peggy Kamuf. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.
• Hendricks, Obery M., Jr. “A More Perfect (High-Tech) Lynching: Obama, the Press, and Jeremiah Wright.” The Speech: Race and Barak Obama’s “A More Perfect Union.” Ed. T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting. New York: Bloomsbury, 2009. 155-83. Print.
• Ibsen, Henrik. Ghosts . Trans. William Archer. Project Gutenburg . Project Gutenberg Library archive Foundation, May 2005. Web. 26 Apr. 08.
• Jefferson, Thomas. “From The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson .” Norton Anthology of American Literature . Eds. Nina Baym et al. Shorter 7th ed. New York: Norton, 2008. 714-19. Print.
• Kurtz, Howard. “Obama’s Speech, Sliced and Diced.” Washington Post.com . Washington Post Media, 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 4 Jun 2011.
• Levinas, Emmanuel. Ethics and Infinity . Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 1982. Print.
• ———. Totality and Infinity . Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 1969. Print.
• ———. Otherwise than Being: or, Beyond Essence . Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 1998. Print.
• Lincoln, Abraham. “The Gettysburg Address.” 19 Nov. 1863. Americanrhetoric.com . Michael E. Eidenmuller, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2008.
• Mansbach, Adam. “The Audacity of Post-Racism.” The Speech: Race and Barak Obama’s “A More Perfect Union.” Ed. T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting. New York: Bloomsbury, 2009. 69-84. Print.
• Moran, Rick. “It’s Getting Crowded Under Obama’s Bus.” American Thinker . American Thinker, 12 Jun. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
• Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992. Print.
• Nealon, Jeffrey T. Alterity Politics: Ethics and Performative Subjectivity . Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Print.
• Nunberg, Geoffrey. “Primaries Toss Some ‘Under the Bus.'” Fresh Air . National Public Radio, 2 Apr. 2008. Web. 4 Jun. 2011.
• Obama, Barack. “A More Perfect Union.” 18 Mar. 2008. Americanrhetoric.com . Michael E. Eidenmuller, n.d. Web. 20 Apr 2008.
• ———. “A Politics of Conscience.” 23 Jun. 2007. UCC.org . United Church of Christ, n.d. Web. 6 May 2011.
• Quinn, Sally. Interview on MSNBC. Radar Online . Integrity Multimedia Company, 18 Mar.2008. Web. 1 May 2008.
• Segal, David. “Time to Hit the Brakes on that Cliché.” Washingtonpost.com . Washington Post Media, 1 May 2008. Web. 4 Jun 2011.
• Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean. The Speech: Race and Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union.” New York: Bloomsbury, 2009. Print.
• Wills, Gary. “Two Speeches on Race.” Nybooks.com . New York Review of Books, 1 May 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.  
• Volume 32, Number 3, May 2022
• Volume 32, Number 2, January 2022
• Volume 32, Number 1, September 2021
• Volume 31, Number 3, May 2021
• Volume 31, Numbers 1 & 2, September 2020 & January 2021
• Volume 30, Number 3, May 2020
• Volume 30, Number 2, January 2020
• Volume 30, Number 1, September 2019
• Volume 29, Number 3, May 2019
• Volume 29, Number 2, January 2019
• Volume 29, Number 1, September 2018
• Volume 28, Number 3, May 2018
• Volume 28, Number 2, January 2018
• Volume 28, Number 1, September 2017
• Volume 27, Number 3, May 2017
• Volume 27, Number 2, January 2017
• Volume 27, Number 1, September 2016
• Volume 26, Number 3, May 2016
• Volume 26, Number 2, January 2016
• Volume 26, Number 1, September 2015
• Volume 25, Number 3, May 2015
• Volume 25, Number 2, January 2015
• Volume 25, Number 1, September 2014
• Volume 24, Number 3, May 2014
• Volume 24, Number 2, January 2014
• Volume 24, Number 1, September 2013
• Volume 23, Number 3, May 2013
• Volume 23, Number 2, January 2013
• Volume 23, Number 1, September 2012
• Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012
• Volume 22, Number 2, January 2012
• Volume 22, Number 1, September 2011
• Volume 21, Number 3, May 2011
• Volume 21, Number 2, January 2011
• Volume 21, Number 1, September 2010
• Volume 20, Number 3, May 2010
• Volume 20, Number 2, January 2010
• Volume 20, Number 1, September 2009
• Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009
• Volume 19, Number 2, January 2009
• Volume 19, Number 1, September 2008
• Volume 18, Number 3, May 2008
• Volume 18, Number 2, January 2008
• Volume 18, Number 1, September 2007
• Volume 17, Number 3 May, 2007
• Volume 17, Number 2, January 2007
• Volume 17, Number 1, September 2006
• Volume 16, Number 3, May 2006
• Volume 16, Number 2, January 2006
• Volume 16, Number 1, September 2005
• Volume 15, Number 3, May 2005
• Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005
• Volume 15, Number 1, September 2004
• Volume 14, Number 3, May 2004
• Volume 14, Number 2, January 2004
• Volume 14, Number 1, September 2003
• Volume 13, Number 3, May 2003
• Volume 13, Number 2, January 2003
• Volume 13, Number 1, September 2002
• Volume 12, Number 3, May 2002
• Volume 12, Number 2, January 2002
• Volume 12, Number 1, September 2001
• Volume 11, Number 3, May 2001
• Volume 11, Number 2, January 2001
• Volume 11, Number 1, September 2000
• Volume 10, Number 3, May 2000
• Volume 10, Number 2, January 2000
• Volume 10, Number 1, September 1999
• Volume 9, Number 3, May 1999
• Volume 9, Number 2, May 1999
• Volume 9, Number 1, September 1998
• Volume 8, Number 3, May 1998
• Volume 8, Number 2, January 1998
• Volume 8, Number 1, September 1997
• Volume 7, Number 3, May 1997
• Volume 7, Number 2, January 1997
• Volume 7, Number 1, September 1996
• Volume 6, Number 3, May 1996
• Volume 6, Number 2, January 1996
• Volume 6, Number 1, September 1995
• Volume 5, Number 3, May 1995
• Volume 5, Number 2, January 1995
• Volume 5, Number 1, September 1994
• Volume 4, Number 3, May 1994
• Volume 4, Number 2, January 1994
• Volume 4, Number 1, September 1993
• Volume 3, Number 3, May 1993
• Volume 3, Number 2, January 1993
• Volume 3, Number 1, September 1992
• Volume 2, Number 3, May 1992
• Volume 2, Number 2, January 1992
• Volume 2, Number 1, September 1991
• Volume 1, Number 3, May 1991
• Volume 1, Number 2, January 1991
• Volume 1, Number 1, September 1990

A More Perfect Union: Analysis

Symbols, motifs, and rhetorical devices, writing style, what's up with the title, what's up with the opening lines, what's up with the closing lines, tough-o-meter, tired of ads, logging out…, logging out....

You've been inactive for a while, logging you out in a few seconds...

W hy's T his F unny?