“Deliberative Discourse Surrounding the Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Background
On February 2, 2010, Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said to the Senate Armed Services Committee,
No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. As a murmur swept through a hearing room packed with gay rights leaders, Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do (“Testimony”).
Situated within his argument is the central word: “lie.” To hear a high-ranking, uniformed professional use this word—a direct contradiction to the honor code embedded in every military member—adds immediate gravitas to the process of Repeal and sets a sends a serious message that the military is now ready and willing to reconcile the visible and the invisible, the public values and the private selves.
On December 21, 1993, President Clinton sanctioned the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” law (colloquially termed: “DADT”). Prior to the sanction, President Clinton attempted to repeal the ban on homosexual service in favor of open integration, but he was defeated by Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee Sam Nunn as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thus, a military member could risk departure if found that he or she participated or attempted to engage in homosexual conducts, labeled him- or herself publicly as a homosexual or bisexual, or married a person of the same gender. In summation, the risks were paramount and reasons for swift departure from the military by a law that “describe[d] homosexuality in the ranks as an “unacceptable risk ... to morale, good order, and discipline” (CRS Report to Congress 4). Rhetoric surrounding the enactment of DADT prompted action. For instance, “the percentage of [homosexual] discharges rose from FY1994 to FY2001 (CRS Report 11). Once governmental officials had established DADT, the policy silenced discussion of homosexual orientation among military members, an opposition in the form of discharges occurred.
Two decades thereafter, the military had adopted a policy of hetero-normativity where the only permitted visible sexuality was between members of the opposite sex; all other forms of sexuality were invisible and suppressed.
The Repeal as Law
These formal words were spoken by the very government agency that sanctioned the ban and discrimination toward homosexual service members. Rhetorically, the document’s reference to the law as “so-called” diminishes and prejudices its power and presence for the audience.
On September 20, 2011, the Department of Defense repealed the military’s “DADT” law for all service members. A historical event, the Repeal required the military to reframe its identity with respect to visible homosexual orientation. The same day, the Department of Defense published an article, “Officials Expect Smooth ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that included this statement:
The law is passed, the studies completed, the findings certified, and the service member training accomplished. Today, after years of debate and months of reparation, the Defense Department starts on a new footing with the Repeal of the so-called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that since 1993 has banned gays and lesbians from serving opening in the military (qtd. in Miles).
The military’s reversal of the ban represents a reframing of values: respect for members who no longer need to lie about their sexual orientation. The reversal was stunning in its significance and notable in written and spoken language about its significance. A watershed event, the “DADT” law was about suppressing speech and the Repeal is about prompting speech and opening the floodgates of declarations muzzled for decades.
Relatively, President Obama avowed, “We have taken the final major step toward ending the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality” (“Statement”). In further words, the president emphasized gains without losses, benefits without costs.
Preparation for the Repeal
In response to the Department’s directive, the military branches engaged in deliberative discourse, the result of which contributed heavily to the Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” an assessment of issues associated with the Repeal. The Report called upon those in uniform to demonstrate “Leadership—Professionalism—Respect” once the Repeal was decreed. The military’s ethos informs these values and practices. The Report named the spoken and written discourse acceptable in communicative situations and stressed a military ethos, albeit a reframed one, of inclusion and ultimately, cohesion.
Drawing from both Aristotle’s principle of “Deliberative” oratory (48) and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “Argument from Authority” (181), this discussion involves an analysis of (1) collective voices in the Report, the White House statement, discourse from President Obama, military brass, other public figures, and journalists; and (2) individual military members’ statements on the topic. Analysis of speeches, documents, interviews, and articles suggest that collective, commanding voices demonstrate an absence of discord, a characteristic distance from emotion; but the opposite is evident in documents with individual service members’ voices: they are more emotional and often appeal to the pathos of their audiences. The military is not known for overly emotional responses to public acts; however, individual service members’ voices emanate more openly, more personally—albeit measured--especially when public acts affect them deeply. As a result of the Repeal, individual voices of service members have become more authoritative, more of the acknowledged source of information because they are experiencing the effects locally in their units and, in the case of some, speaking on the Repeal publically for the first time in history.
This rhetorical situation called for an examination of pre-appeal rhetoric in the documents and post-appeal rhetoric in action.
In an example of an argument from authority, Army Major General Patton, chief of staff for the Pentagon’s Repeal implementation team, stated, “The Repeal is law. The military follows the law, and we are executing this as part of our mission” (qtd. in Miles). To amplify his declaration, he escalated his discourse, saying, the Repeal “will strengthen the military. It will continue to allow us to keep gay and lesbian service members in the military, and we will be a better military for it” (qtd. in Miles). Using words such as “strengthen” and “better” from the outset of the Repeal, Patton emphasized the positive nature of the change in case there were any doubt in the minds of service members, thereby proactively moving the narrative in a certain, militaristic direction. Aristotle said, “…it is necessary for the deliberative…speaker to have propositions about the possible and the impossible and [about] whether it will or will not come to be” (qtd. in Kennedy 51). Major General Patton discussed the possible—never veering toward the impossible—that the Repeal, would come into existence.
Definitions
For this discussion, I offer these stipulated definitions for sake of clarity: (1) argument from authority is (a) a high-positioned political figure or military officer or (b) an individual service member who has direct experience with the Repeal or is self-identified as homosexual; and (2) deliberative discourse is defined as political arguments to persuade audiences about future (or, in a few noted cases herein) past occurrences.
Preparation for the Repeal
Top leaders from each service academy (Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Navy) had appointed several highly-respected military and civilian scholars to separately expound on applicable theories (ex. religious, ethical, and leadership), approaches to “leading change,” and make recommendations for implementation in their White Paper (spring and summer, 2010). Once the White Paper was prepared, a meeting convened at the Pentagon in late 2010 to discuss cross-pollination of the content among the four documents. Decisions on content and outcomes of the meeting drove the Report, which became a united voice of its authors and later helped to inform President Obama’s decision and discourse on the Repeal.
Inside the Report are authoritative, deliberative voices spoken in a professional tone--never negative, always cordial. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca argue, “the prestige argument appears in its most characteristic form in the argument from authority…the greater the authority, the more unquestionable does his pronouncement become” (305-308). This notion is different in the military. Authority is always assumed. The insignia on uniforms and full visibility to the chain of command are explicit examples of authority. Obama took a step further to establish his intrinsic ethos. From the outset, he has stated his undeniable support for the military as another strategy that confronts the stereotype that Democrats do not favor the military.
Implementing the Repeal with a Collective Voice
As early as page two of the Report, the “Key Implementation Message” was established: “Leadership, Professionalism, and Respect”—three values repeated often in official, governmental documents discussing the Repeal. Notable in the series of three-, six-, and two-syllable words is that repetition of the message in an inverted form placing emphasis on “professionalism” as the prevalent value of both leadership and respect. Thus, there is no moral debate on the message; the language bespeaks the authority of leaders from the top to bottom of the chains of command across services who took oaths to defend the Constitution; they took an oath to respect all, not this particular group or another group, but all people. Again, there is no grey area in the message: those serving must adhere as commanded in an approach removed from emotion. Their goal was to shine a positive light on a controversial act teeming with sensitive and strong opinions.
“There exist virtues and forms of behavior that can be conceived only in relation to concrete values,” argue Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (77). The Report emphasized behavior more so than attitude to unify the military members present—all for the sake of effectiveness. The report also recognized that a myriad of beliefs: moral and religious while still emphasizing core values.
For the preparation, implementation, and (expected) adherence of the Repeal, the timing of the change became a rhetorical strategy. For the deliberative speaker, the focus is the future. In the military culture, the focus is always the future: the next thought, event, operation, and action. Once a draft of the Report was finished in March, 2010, the White House, Department of Defense, and service academy representatives spoke of the Repeal to reinforce military morals to active service personnel. They also managed expectations by announcing the work may, in fact, take one and one-half years to alter the understanding and adherence to DADT so as to promote “readiness” upon Repeal of the law.
In his position as Commander-in-Chief, the president has this guarantee described by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca: the express observance of American military members to his arguments; this is certainly true of the military brass and service academy civilian scholars whose input subsumes the Report. In other words, there is no justification needed; it is enough that a mandate came from Obama’s position of authority: “The whole reason is that he has spoken,” states Bossuet (qtd. in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 308). If military members disagreed with President Obama’s stance, those in uniform would not voice their adversarial viewpoints publically. Instead, they adopted their military personas and adhere to his stance as they are banned from showing disrespect to their Commander-in-Chief. The Report stated, “This research clearly indicates that the best mitigator for potential problems post-Repeal is the frontline leader” (37). Clearly, President Obama intuited this assertion and lead accordingly.
Another rhetorical strategy is the Defense and other officials’ use of phrases that include the absolutism of “will” with direct or indirect (in which case, strongly implied) subjects. For example, “we will no longer; we are authorized to determine; we will comply; disrespect will not be tolerated and will be swiftly and appropriately dealt with.” An underlying message among these assertions is clear: compliance is better for the military member; non-compliance is worse for them. The repetition of “will” (rather than “should” or “may”) leaves no shred of doubt about the military’s stance. In the military, guidance is not advice--guidance is a mandate.
In the final version of the Report, there existed a sense of a satisfactory collective argument that made an extrinsic ethos appeal. Speakers with authority are not infallible but the writers showed an inherent trust that a collective voice reflected the higher values of the majority.
There is an assertion that “leadership matters most” and those who lead do so by example and that assumption was their argument for authority: if they exhibited leadership, professionalism, and respect so too their subordinates. As above, so below.
Military Action Post-Repeal
In the fall and spring post Repeal, several novel events took place revealing the diminished power of the former law. At the military colleges, for instance, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and Norwich University in Vermont held the first meetings of their SPECTRUM and LGBTQA clubs respectively. Cadets at West Point followed suit by setting up a similar club. Norwich’s club held a “Spirit Week” of workshops, films, and even a “Condom Olympics” to raise awareness and promote understanding across the base.
In the military’s operational realm, a female Navy sailor won her ship’s raffle for the “first kiss” once they docked; she gave a kiss to her partner, a fellow Petty Officer. Gaeta, the raffle winner, said, “It’s something new, that’s for sure…It’s nice to be able to be myself. It’s been a long time coming” (qtd. in Vergakis). Other immediate expressions included: marching in gay pride parades, participating in civil union ceremonies, one with a Navy chaplain officiating, receiving recognition and awards; and their partners are present, and showing affection to their partners upon return from war or other military service.
In these instances, long-suppressed individual voices of service members were, in essence, shouting their relief and joy to a universal audience; the day had finally arrived for visible and emotional expression of their sexual orientation.
Individual Military Voices Post-Repeal
On March 31, 2012, I was reading a CNN.com article, “Gay pride groups appear at U.S. military academies,” when, unexpectedly, I came upon words by Kara (names have been changed to protect their privacy), my advisee whom I had counseled for the past four years at our military college. She said openly,
I felt separated from my friends having to hide something that big, a part of my life…We have an honor code at the school, and you practically had to lie to people when they asked if you’re dating anybody, if you had a boyfriend (qtd. in Boyette).
Reflecting on her words, a wave of sadness and guilt overcame me. She and I had met frequently to discuss social and academic topics, but concerns about her sexual orientation never arose in our conversations. For a few weeks, I waited to discuss the article with her as I did not want to foist my new-found awareness upon our strong, professional bond. At a final conference before her graduation, I broached the subject: “I read the CNN.com article, and I’m proud of you. I also feel a little guilty that I couldn’t be there for you on this.” She replied, “But that’s just it, I couldn’t tell you. I had a girlfriend for two years, and I was very upset when we broke up. But, I couldn’t show my sorrow to anyone here. Now, I can finally be myself.”
In the official documents, there exists a collective voice—one that does not want sentiments to cost too much emotionally. The further “say,” to which Scott refers, involves more research to hear from those most affected by the Repeal, that is, the military members whose feelings fuel their perspectives. Collective and individual voices may even contradict each other. Examining the data from Scott’s video and other documents cited in this discussion, the individual members were, to varying extents, more open and emotional.
At this juncture, one may still ask, Are they expressing platitudes, the expected lines, or the truth? Likely, the truth, but the measured truth. But using the rhetorical strategy of diminishing tactics: litotes, making something less important than it is shrinks the magnitude of the Repeal to something more manageable, understandable, and incorporated. As shown in both collective and individual voices, the diminishment of the magnitude of the Repeal, that is, portraying the event as “business-as-usual” or a “non-event,” has been a deliberate move of the military to discredit opposing voices in the historical DADT debate: open integration would cause damage to unit cohesion, thereby undermining military effectiveness. In times of transition, the military resorts to logic and values thus communicated as mandates, especially when the issue at hand is controversial and debatable. A distance exists in the collective language or voice that disallows for pathos. In the language of individual military members, that distance diminishes as they speak more emotionally, as senior Kara indicated in the video, “…those few individuals, like myself, felt they couldn’t really be themselves and they couldn’t really be as happy as they knew they could or wanted to be feel a lot better,” as though once bereaved and invisible in a sense, now unburdened to raise their private identity within the bounds of the military. And, we have only begun to hear their individual voices.
One Year After the Repeal
Democratic National Convention
As America approached the one-year anniversary of the Repeal, citizens posed the question, What has happened almost one year after the Repeal?
In early September, 2012, at the Democratic National Convention, three increasingly vital individual voices of leaders spoke, in part, on the effect of the Repeal. From these voices came more personal sensibilities. First, Jason Crow, Captain, U.S. Army (ret.); Second, Jared Polis, Congressman from Colorado’s second district; and third, President Obama. With respect to the Repeal, each speaker had a role in its larger ethos: Crow is a veteran; Polis is a gay congressman; and Obama ended the nearly 20-year law so that gay individuals can serve in the military without fear of reprisal. Following is a close language analysis using exhortation in the form of positive, persuasive diction that affirms the Repeal and President Obama’s associated action.
First, Mr. Jason Crow, Captain, U.S. Army (ret.) spoke in support Obama’s military policies and candidacy. From a position of authority as a veteran, Capt. Crow (ret.) stated:
I’m not a delegate. I’m not a politician. I’m a veteran.
Negating roles that can have a negative connotation, Crow first dismissed personas of a “delegate” and “politician” to clear the way for his credible identifier: a retired military member aligned with the beliefs of his Commander-in-Chief. Further establishing his intrinsic ethos, that is, a way to stand on his reputation as an individual member speaking with pride, Crow stated:
I was an Army Ranger captain and fought alongside some of this country’s
bravest soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His authority established, he emphasized the valiant efforts of his fellow soldiers. Countering Governor Romney’s oversight of: not “mention[ing] our troops in Afghanistan even once,” Crow took the opportunity to compliment the troops and reiterate facts that they took the oath and defended their country selflessly.
Using a rhetorical strategy of “ploce,” the “reassertion of the same term or phrase [with] undoubted rhetorical force” (Fahnestock 135), Crow repeated the word “promise” in the following lines:
And our country made a promise too, a promise to support us overseas
and fight for us when we came home. I’m here to say that President Obama
kept that promise.
Given the values of honesty and integrity to which the military adheres, it is unsurprising that he would select and repeat the word “promise” for potency early in his speech. His use of ploce served the fundamental morality codes of the military branches: a service member’s word is a word of honor. He also showcased President Obama to increase adherence to his final argument about the Repeal. His prose is clear and coherent; and in favor of his commander-in-chief who showed care and concern for the military’s well-being, namely health and veteran benefits.
A core portion of Crow’s speech is affirmation that Obama took the correct, appropriate action to Repeal “DADT”:
It was wrong that men and women I served with could be told they weren't good enough just because of their sexual orientation. Soldiers who I trusted with my life, and fought alongside with, could be discharged because of who they loved. President Obama did the right thing by ending ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ The choice is clear.
Using a pathetic appeal to the American conscience and early placement relative to the words “wrong” and “they weren’t good enough,” Crow cast a moral judgment on past practices that dismissed gay members of the military. In contrast to the collective voices that deterred from pathos, Crow followed his “standard-bearer” argument with a direct appeal to the pride which strengthened Obama’s credibility with his fellow military members—active and retired. Taking the opportunity to return to his own position of authority as a veteran, an individual, more personal voice, Crow stated: “Soldiers who I trusted with my life, and fought alongside with…” He spoke of equality and shared responsibility to appeal to other military members—a key audience. Using passive voice suggesting indirect agency, he argued, “… [homosexual service members] could be told they weren’t good enough just because of their sexual orientation.” Here, he avoided assigning direct blame to previous administrations, perhaps not wanting to offend nor alienate key figures in the Democratic Party. Rhetorically, Crow (and other DNC speakers noted below) elude any political affiliation (in this case, Democrat) in a previously unjust policy, with careful language to engender alignment of viewpoints.
Assuredly, he saved the weighty point for the end position as he argued the indefensible: “[military members] could be discharged because of who they loved,” Here, he implied that setting policies around citizen’s, particularly a service man’s or woman’s personal, intimate choices in relationships is simply wrong. To “right this wrong,” Crow stated deliberatively: “President Obama did the right thing by ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.” And, lest there be any
further doubt, he amplified this point by stating: “The choice is clear.” Underscoring his declarative statement, he further stated that President Obama reflected on “service members, their families, and veterans every single day,” and he “has their back.” His “visual” depiction of President Obama’s concern for the military firmly established, Crow moved to his final statements by exhortative assertion of the president’s appropriate, honorable action.
Crow’s speech was absent of discord. He leaned on pathetic appeals to honor the military and the pride of Americans as he diminished the complexity of such topics as veterans’ benefits and the Veterans Administration’s health system, soldiers dying in combat, and soldiers’ sexual orientation and the military view on making visible their identity.
Second, Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado’s Second Congressional District, began his speech with a series of deliberative statements:
…I am Jewish. I am gay. I am a father. I am a son. I am an entrepreneur. I am a
Congressman from Colorado. I am always an optimist. But first and foremost, I am
an American.
In a series with the last descriptor emphasized, Polis brought prominence to his citizenship as an American that encompasses (or perhaps, trumps) all his other roles. Using eight assertive statements of the “I am” flavor, he affirms his rightful place at the podium. Hence, he said, “I am gay” and “I am a father” second and third respectively in series of eight assertions, thereby placing a spotlight on his right to self-identify as a gay man and father as well as the core value of respect for one’s sexual orientation as one of Obama’s strengths as president.
In an uplifting speech, Polis spoke in both collective and individual voices. On the subject of unification as Americans: Democrat, Republican, or other party are welcome at the national table, Polis became the spokesman for his party and sexual orientation. He illuminated President Obama’s argument to place differences aside, to bring all Americans together, to be as “one.” Giving credence to the president’s most powerful pathetic appeal to the pride of Americans, Polis implied a definition of loyalty and patriotism in “togetherness,” which set the stage for his argument that included homosexual service members.
With only a limited number of speakers allowable on the DNC itinerary, clearly, President Obama chose Polis because he represents a historically disenfranchised group; therefore, he could speak from a position of strength and power to both assenting and dissenting members of the audience. He spoke from the place of an individual who has been part of marginalized groups. If he can identify the truth of his roles, namely a gay father and partner, publicly and proudly, his position of authority is secured by his identification foremost as an American encircling all his other roles. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca argued, “Often argument from authority seems to be under attack, but the challenge is really to the person chosen as authority” (307). Evidently, President Obama was willing to employ direct agency with Polis as a speaker who may be controversial to conservative citizens who may disagree with the Repeal. Unlike Obama’s more indirect agency when referring to gay members of the military or gay marriage in his own DNC speech, his choice of Polis is a direct symbol of Democratic Party principles and an undeniable change to the past, limited definition of an American.
Polis’ speech was absent of discord and, instead, present with a careful tempering of emotion as he diminishes the size of the issue of diversity, including sexual orientation, to a manageable level. Again, a speaker used the strategy of litotes to create a way of thinking about the Repeal as a seamless event.
Third and foremost, President Obama spoke as keynote in his prestigious position of authority. Rhetorically, he was the speaker, his re-nomination and plans for his future term the subject, and the audience DNC attendees and wider television audience acting as judges of future happenings. His re-nomination inevitable, Obama’s argument from authority was still “of extreme importance, and, although in any given argument it is permissible to question its value, it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant without further ado” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 306). Standing on the ethos of his past four years in office, President Obama spoke affirmatively from his position of special authority anointed by a democratic process and validated by direct experience:
You know, I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed, and so have I. I'm no longer just a candidate. I'm the President.
And…I know what it means to send young Americans into battle, for I have held in my arms the mothers and fathers of those who didn't return.
In a less personal, more serious tone, he referred to military issues, including military service members’ freedom to “make visible” their sexual orientation. The president spoke of “truth”—fitting given the nature of a “public outing” of homosexual military members in their services.
From the local reference to the purpose of DADT to a global reference, he spoke of a “tribute to the Americans who still serve in harm's way.” Uniting himself with his listeners, Obama used the inclusive “we” to express gratitude:
We are forever in debt to a generation whose sacrifice has made this country safer and more respected. We will never forget you. And so long as I'm Commander-in-Chief, we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known. When you take off the uniform, we will serve you as well as you've served us - because no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they need when they come home.
Coupled with the unification effort, he used deliberative language in a positive, passionate tone with heavy sequencing of the collective pronoun “we”:
We are forever…, We will never forget you…, We will serve you…
From a position of special authority as president, Obama continued to use extrinsic ethos as he appealed to his listeners in subsequent references:
· We understand that this democracy is ours.
· We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights
· As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together…
The inclusive “we” together with resilient action verbs show again Obama’s presumption of agreement that Americans are “there for” returning soldiers with open hearts. This example of sequenced language underscores the “togetherness” theme in Obama’s speech.
From “we” to “you,” Obama switched his pronoun references to lessen the distance between him and Americans even more so. Now that he has “we” established, he turns to “you” to strengthen the integrity of his inclusive argument: together, you and I can make changes, including the Repeal. In the short series of remarks below, seven references to “you” or “you’re” argue for individual responsibility, and when demonstrating this value, compliment his audience:
· So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens - you were the change. You're the reason there's a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who'll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can't limit her coverage. You did that.
· You're the reason a young man in Colorado who never thought he'd be able to afford his dream of earning a medical degree is about to get that chance. You made that possible.
· You're the reason…why selfless soldiers won't be kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love; why thousands of families have finally been able to say to the loved ones who served us so bravely: "Welcome home."
Now that he had made a direct connection with his audience members as individuals, he moved to a military reference. Obama mentioned the “selfless,” implies the sacrificial, and constructs the meaning of noble service. First, he began to compliment men and women in uniform. Next, he used the hard-hitting verb phrase: “kicked out” as though soldiers were victimized by former administrations even though they selflessly served their country, though they were homosexual or loved a member(s) of the same sex, though they were treated unjustly. Another worthy observation is that did not make himself the agent as he could have done: “why [I will not kick out selfless soldiers] because of who they are or who they love.” Using a rhetorical strategy of non-attribution: the absence of agency that would have diluted the potency of his argument, he distanced himself from past direct action. After striving to form a “oneness” with his audiences, President Obama did not want to set himself apart. Instead, he credited the audience for perhaps their activism, though they did not vote on the issue of DADT nor have a direct hand in repealing this ban.
Continuing his engagement with the audience to guard against the actions of the opposing party, he used second person to reach closest to them:
· Only you can make sure that doesn't happen. Only you have the power to move us forward.
This is his final remark in the “you” series as deliberative discourse using exhortation, the persuasive edge to empower them. A compliment, an outreach, a challenge, Obama’s use of “you” puts responsibility on each American to join together in thinking of power and change relative to the Repeal and other topics. In the larger essence of his speech, Obama spoke conceptual truths, for example, soldiers can now openly be their “sexual orientation” and love others of the same sex rightfully.
Each speaker at the DNC stood on intrinsic ethos, their “selves” arguments and symbols for the rights of homosexual military members. Illustratively, Obama said, “But as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America.” Each speaker concentrated on that which is just in an America that accepts diversity even in its military ranks. Each speaker wants its audience to “do the right thing”: accept the Repeal openly.
This is not to say there are still not challenges ahead and incidents of harassment unreported, but the overall assessment from the speeches and writings herein is a positive outcome of the Repeal thus far.
Conclusion
The “Overall Assessment” of the Report presented this conclusion:
Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the
prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of
Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low.
With the persuasive power presented in the noted speeches and writings, there is alignment with both the predictive and prescriptive value of the Report. Speakers—and there are many cited here: Obama, high-ranking military officials; military and civilian scholars; military college students; a congressman, a veteran, and military service members—have all been affected by the Repeal. Opinions and facts recounted by them serve as proof that the Repeal was necessary, just, timely, welcomed. And, formidable in terms of advancing the greater good.
The texts and discourse emphasize the advantageousness of the Repeal for national and local audiences. They argued by example both as symbols themselves and references to others’ visible displays of their sexual orientation demonstrating the deep influence of the monumental reversal of silent to spoken words and invisible to visible expression of homosexual identity in uniform.
Suggested by the rhetorical analysis of the language, there ensued several commonalities across the texts that exhibit argument from authority and deliberative oratory using exhortative means manage a controversial act. They include: (1) established intrinsic ethos of the speakers who appealed to character of their audiences; (2) written and verbal text generally absent of discord, save an example from student documentary and texts beyond the scope of this analysis; (3) a focus on future until the Repeal reached its first-year anniversary after which the attention shifted to the recent past; (4) rhetors using deliberative approaches with means of exhortation; and (5) collective voices were more distant from emotion while individual service members’ voices were more personal, sometimes appealed to pathos of audience, and other times, exhibited a sort of self-censorship to express sentiments in alignment with the “non-event” narrative. In other words, the collective voices were more detached but the individual voices were more likely (but not significantly) to express discord as well.
As a whole, their voices responded to a rhetorical situation constructed by the act of dissolving a nearly twenty-year-old law that called for considered responses that took the form of facts, testimony, and assertions. The reversed policy that prompted the rhetorical situation engendered much thought, research, and a “way of reacting” to the Repeal as conveyed to the public—perhaps to counter an opposition that the Repeal will negatively influence unit cohesion and military effectiveness.
Such a shift in policy required careful use of words. A more specific look at the language of the texts shows frequent use of noun-verb phrases (ex. I trust…We will) as a means of persuasion to express their confidence. Such phrases are undeviating and leave little if any room for doubt of the direction of the military mission. Exhibiting more direct responsibility, they show ownership of their clear intentions. Their choice of pronouns is indicative of an unwavering agreement they sought with audiences; for example, frequent use of “we” and “us.”
Many rhetors’ use of repetition of words and phrases implicated the original stated values of leadership, professionalism, and respect. By repeating positive (save for negative terms when referring to injustice of homosexual service members) terms, they stayed on a similar message: the Repeal is in the best interest of all affected, and there is much to gain by becoming a more open and progressive democracy that yields indelible, valuable historical events such as the Repeal that call on us rhetorically to examine its implications lest the event prosper unchecked.
APPENDIX A
In spring, 2012, I taught a world literature course with a focus on diverse epics and myths. For the final project requiring visual and written components, students created myths, Facebook pages for characters, and narratives. One student, Scott chose to create and direct a student documentary: “The Guardians’ Repeal: Myth and Reality.” He had shown great passion in seeking and making public the point of view of those affected directly by the Repeal, and this project showcased his unique and timely plans.
He interviewed several cadets in positions of leadership (gay and straight); and a faculty member. Given time constraints of two weeks, he included student and faculty voices in his 20-minute documentary; and he intends to pursue this work as a capstone project during his senior year as a political science major. He also offered commentary on conclusions drawn from the cadets’ and professor’s remarks, but he did not appear in the documentary.
Following are Scott’s questions and a sampling of student and faculty member responses. All names have been changed to protect their privacy.
What is your perspective on the impact of the Repeal of DADT?
(1) Junior Hayley: “If anything, it has really been a positive. There have been no negative effects in my eyes.”
(2) Senior Kara (her words appeared in the CNN.com article): “It just kind of rolled up on us. It wasn’t a big drastic event where everything changed overnight. We’ve been working on it for four years, had a policy in place, everything went as planned and then the Repeal came into place and it just went off without a hitch.”
What are your opinions on myths about the Repeal of DADT?
(1) Junior Hayley: “I think people were way too paranoid about how the Repeal would go. There has been nothing but positive feedback about the Repeal…They were living among us in the corps prior to [the Repeal of] don’t ask don’t tell and now that they have the ability to be open about it, that does not change the kind of person they are.”
Has the Repeal changed anything?
(1) Senior Chris: “As far as the corps as a whole goes, I would say it hasn’t had much of an effect at all. I think it impacted those individuals who had to live under it and hide themselves but, as a unit, daily life hasn’t been affected much.”
(2) Political Science Professor Matthews: “I think it’s been a really positive thing. It has increased our retention. Before the Repeal I was the vault for gay and lesbian cadets so if you are gay or lesbian and wanted to talk to someone, I was one of the people you could come and talk to. I talked to many cadets who considered leaving because it was very hard to be here and be in the closet. They were worried about what was going to happen. What if somebody found out? So, in that way, I think it’s been a huge positive for us as an institution.”
What has been the impact on the leadership aspects of cadets?
(1) Junior Melanie: “Absolutely not. I don’t think being gay or straight has any bearing on your effectiveness as a leader.”
(2) Junior Hayley: “People who are gay, straight or bisexual are able to be more open about their lives [and] about their relationships and I ultimately think that is making them better leaders for the corps of cadets because they are able to have that discussion with their friends…that openness is essential to being true to yourself as a leader.”
Have any new myths developed since the Repeal of DADT?
(1) Senior Chris: “We don’t know how it’s going to affect our careers yet. That could come
into play too. We don’t know what type of effects it will have down the line. I think both of those combine to make a pretty small out-of-the-closet population here because we are the first and that is sometimes a kind of scary place to be.”
Of note in the student responses: some refuse to see to see homosexual identity related to leadership, while others see connection between open sexuality and effective leadership. Some see different parts of one’s identity: sexual orientation, military college student, leader as compartmentalized, while others see sexual orientation as integrated into every part of one’s identity—including serving as a leader. Still another, Senior Chris, expresses dissonance and honest concern about the Repeal’s stated openness and the military’s ability to attain this new culture. Given that the Repeal was new, and the entire view of homosexuals serving in the military was re-orienting, the students were only beginning to “try on” their views publicly. It is important to note any self-censorship in light of the “non-event” cultural view first established by President Obama that stepped all the way down the ladder of command to rest upon the military college students.
At the military college where I teach, my Humanities colleagues and I have given considerable thought to pedagogy incorporating Repeal language into our curriculum. For years, we have sought to raise cultural awareness of race, religion, sexual orientation, and more in our classes, especially since English classes in an engineering institution are a main place where student thought and expression about culture are influenced.
*****
After Scott had shown the documentary in class, I asked him, “Is this mostly Much Ado About Nothing?” He replied, “Yeah, I think so, but there’s more to say.”
Works Cited
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York:
Oxford, 1991. Print.
Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne. Sermons, Vol. II: “Sur la soumission due á la parole de Jésus-
Christ.” (1862): 117, 120-121. Paris: Garnier. Print.
Boyette, Chris. “Gay pride groups appear at U.S. military academies.” CNN.com 31 March
2012. Web. 24 May 2012.
Burrelli, David F. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress Prepared for Members
and Committees of Congress: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: The Law and Military Policy on
Same-Sex Behavior. Cong. Rec. 14 October 2010: R40782. Web. 12 December 2012.
Corbett, Edward J. and Robert J. Connors. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4th ed.
New York: Oxford, 1999. Print.
Crow, Jason. Captain, U.S. Army (ret.) “2012 Democratic National Convention: Remarks as
Prepared for Delivery by Jason Crow, Captain, U.S. Army (ret.).” demconvention.com
6 September 2012. Web. 7 September 2012.
Department of Defense. Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
Department of Defense. White Paper: Support Plan for the Implementation, Report of the
Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
defense.gov 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical Style. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Testimony Regarding Department of Defense “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Policy as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and ADM Mike Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 2 February 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
Kepick, Scott. Dir. “The Guardians’ Repeal: Myth and Reality. United States Coast Guard
Academy.” Course Project: Documentary. 30 April 2012. DVD.
Miles, Donna. “Officials Expect Smooth ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal.” Defense.gov U.S. Department of Defense, 20 Sept. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Obama, Barack. “DNC 2012 Speech.” Washingtonpost.com 6 September 2012. Web. 7
September 2012.
Perelman, C.H, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.
Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press,
1969. Print.
Polis, Jared. “DNC 2012 Speech.” demconvention.com 6 September 2012. Web. 7 September
2012.
Vergakis, Brock. “Female sailors share ‘first kiss’ at Navy ship’s return.”guardian.com 22
Dec. 2011. Web. 24 May 2012.
White House. “Statement by the President on Certification of Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
whitehouse.gov 22 July 2011. Web. 24 May 2012.