25 October 2016 Rhetorical Analysis "Crossing Party Lines To Vote For Hillary"

It’s no secret that the 2016 election has become an animal entirely different than any other election in history so far. Donald Trump has taken to attacking Hillary Clinton on stage during debates, as well as on social media; in response, Hillary has attempted to rebuke him, often at her own expense—insert her “delete your account” tweet. However, Hillary has recently taken to a more indirect (read, passive-aggressive) approach to attacking Trump: through her campaign ads. One ad is particularly poignant in calling to mind Trump’s insensitivity and pushing Hillary to the forefront as a rational candidate who is willing to learn.

            The ad features a middle-aged woman, Jennifer Kohn, who has the word “Republican” displayed prominently beneath her name. It opens with a clip of Jennifer’s son, who is autistic, flapping his hands, which is then juxtaposed with a clip of Trump mockingly flapping his hands in a similar way. While these clips play, there is a voiceover of Jennifer’s voice describing, “It’s not uncommon for autistic kids to flap their hands. And so when I saw [Trump’s video], that was completely disqualifying.” This image alone is powerful, but in case the viewers were not perceptive enough to pick up on the subtle message, Jennifer then goes on to say “I’m a Republican, but this election is so much bigger than party. My son Max can’t live in Trump world. So I’m crossing party lines, and voting for Hillary. I don’t always agree with her, but she’s reasonable. And she’s smart. She can work with people to solve problems.”

            Hillary and her campaign team certainly struck a heartstring with this ad. Like any good piece of campaign material, it simultaneously lifted Hillary up while pushing her opponent down. However, the ad also strategically adopted a voice of grave concern/disapproval—how could Trump act this way? His insensitivities, as shown in this ad, are losing him votes because he is unable to relate himself to those within the disadvantaged (in this case, handicapped) parts of society. More than that, he is unwilling to even try.

Having Jennifer outwardly state that this election is “so much bigger than party” and that she is willing to “cross party lines, and [vote] for Hillary” both qualify and disqualify the importance of this ad’s audience (American voters), and its allegiances to political parties. On the one hand, as Jennifer’s first comment states, this election has come to a point in which party allegiance no longer matters because the situation is so grave. There are clearly two competing parties at work as there usually are, but Trump stands as a strange foreign beast in the land of Republicans; he causes members of the party he represents to flee from the proposed “Trump world.” This election isn’t just about putting one of the two parties in office; it is about keeping a huge mistake out of the White House. However, this ad also strategically does not throw away the notion of political parties entirely, as this would surely scare away Hillary’s own voters in the Democratic realm. Instead, Jennifer claims that she will “cross party lines” and “[vote] for Hillary”, so as to further the notion that this election is no longer about the difference between qualified candidates of two opposing parties, but instead is about keeping one person specifically out of the White House.

The stasis of this ad is clearly jurisdiction. Hillary is being labeled as qualified to represent not only her own party, but also the stragglers from a party unsatisfied with its chosen candidate. Trump is the type of person to send rational people running from him, sure, but the importance of this ad is to prove that while Trump sends people running, Hillary is there to provide them with safety. Hillary is “reasonable,” she’s “smart,” she “can work with people to solve problems.” And all this, coming from a woman who openly admits to being part of the opposing political party, and who does not “always agree with [Hillary].” Admitting that there are things that a Republican woman does not necessarily agree with Hillary about is powerful; it brings the argument down to Earth, claiming Hillary as the lesser of two evils. She is a Democrat that even Republicans would choose when faced with Trump as the alternative. Who better to speak to Republicans about Hillary than a fellow Republican who has seen the other side?

It’s difficult to say which rhetorical appeal in this ad is the most prominent, because it clearly draws on all three. However, I would say that pathos shows through the strongest. The opening of the ad alone is powerful—what if this were your child? Or better yet, what if this is your child? How would you feel about putting a man so insensitive to the plight of other human beings (of children!) in the position of Commander in Chief? Hillary attempts to shock her audience into realizing that Trump is irrational and ignorant, and this in turn attempts to establish her ethos. Hillary may not be perfect, but she is intelligent, and she is willing to learn and work with people in a way Trump never has been. She is a problem-solver, a woman with substance and sympathy that makes her more than qualified for the position as leader of the United States—especially over Trump. This in turn helps to build logos—Hillary may not be the best, but she is better than the alternative. You may not like her policy, but at least she will never make fun of your autistic son. Instead she will attempt to get to know him, and you, as she takes her position in the Oval Office. And wouldn’t you rather have someone willing to support all members of the United States—even those without a voice?

I certainly think that this advertisement was effective; the first time I watched it I did feel a bit moved, to say the least. But more than that, I felt it was a clever piece of rhetoric. Trump certainly does not make it very difficult to find fault in his actions, and though Hillary has often (mistakenly) sunk to his level in an attempt to defeat him, this ad is a good example of representing Hillary as above and beyond him in more ways than one.