The Role of Presidential Candidates’ Wives in the 2004 Election
During the 2004 conventions, America was presented with two very different women, with two very distinct outlooks: Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry. While both women attempt to capture the same demographic sector throughout their addresses, the language and style of each speech, as well as the issues discussed, vary tremendously. As each oration unfolds, new views and opinions are introduced to the women voters of America, and the obvious contrast between each presentation leaves these women voters with numerous interpretations and decisions to be made, but the variety offered between to two speeches also leaves these women voters with two distinct choices at the polls.
Laura Bush’s speech focused on the inner workings of the family unit. Throughout her address, great emphasis was not only placed on her own tightly knit family, but also on examples of families affected by President Bush’s decisions. She mentions Joshua Crane and his two brothers who are defending our nation, and the affects the war has on their mother, the children effected by the education plan, the increase in home ownership, and her own father who was a veteran of WWII. Laura’s own family is also intertwined into the address. Throughout the monologue, she mentions several times that she is “so proud” of her husband and daughters. She discusses times of hardship around the dinner table and in the living room while her husband contemplated his next tactical move. And like women of past decades, she stood by her husband through the tough times.
Laura’s speech is filled with allusions to the past, and many of her ideologies seem to lie in the past as well. Although her address emphasizes women throughout its majority, the role in which she places herself seems outdated. As she discusses Carmella Chaifos, the only woman to own a trucking company in the state of Iowa, the freedoms that the women of Afghanistan are finally able to enjoy and the women who are fighting overseas right now to protect our freedom, it seems as though her role in the presidential production is only that of mother and wife, and not one of stature and importance. Each achievement discussed in her presentation was gratefully attributed to her husband, and the only accomplishment that she herself projects is one of support for her family.
Throughout her presentation, Laura Bush interjects various stories pertaining to her plight as First Lady. Her target audience is emphasized through these stories by the way in which each anecdote flips the gender roles upside down. In his book, Dan Hahn discusses gender roles and their effects on both men and women. The interjected stories in Mrs. Bush’s speech work to contradict the effects discussed. The first story that challenges these pre-set gender roles is about Carmella Chaifos. As the “only woman to own a tow truck company in all of Iowa,” Carmella is definitely a woman in a man’s domain. Another anecdote describes a woman serving in the armed forces. According to Hahn, the effect of gender roles on women is the “mask of beauty.” Although many women are obliged to conform to this mask, the tow truck industry and the armed forces are venues where strength and courage seem to prevail over physical appearance. The effects of gender roles on men are confronted with the story of the woman in the armed forces as well. Since the effect of these roles on men is “invitation to war,” the woman in this story is fulfilling the man’s pre-supposed position.
The twisting of these roles throughout Laura Bush’s speech not only produces a target audience, but also enhances the important effects of strong women within our society. The emphasis placed on the role of women and the family in this speech obviously makes the female voting sector the target of her address, but the interjected descriptions of strong women throughout the world are diminished when the speech is analyzed as a whole. Although strength is attributed to many women outside herself, Laura Bush’s interest remains with her husband and family. Her strength as a woman is never discussed and her humble attitude is rewarded by the love of her husband and daughters. While her “down-home” qualities may appeal to a part of the population, the strong women voters that are targeted in this address may leave this speech feeling somewhat belittled because the speaker does not seem like an equal with the people that she speaks of through the majority of her address.
Teresa Kerry’s address, in contrast with that of Laura Bush, seemed very rigid and formulaic. Soaked with metaphors and formal language, it often felt as though Teresa was talking at her audience, instead of to us. Like Mrs. Bush, the majority of Teresa Kerry’s speech centered on women voters, and also like Mrs. Bush, Teresa Kerry does a wonderful job of alienating this large sector of the voting population. It seems as though Teresa Kerry is living in the past as well; she is stuck in a time when women were never considered equals. While the women’s movement becomes stronger as the years progress, Teresa Kerry’s address emphasized not the strength that women have gained throughout these years, but the strength women lack (in here eyes). As a woman voter, I was offended to hear a statement such as: “one day soon, womenâÂ?¦will be called smart or well-informed, just as men are.”
Teresa’s stiff language forces her, as a speaker, even further away from her target audience. Discussion of issues was limited, and metaphorical references were plentiful. While some of these metaphors left the audience questioning the relevance (America as a Peace Corp volunteer), others made a stronger impact. The religious allusions throughout this message seem to resonate through the speech as a whole. The strong symbols of “angels,” “mystic chords,” and “faith,” are symbols that the majority of America believes in. These are symbols of past times, as well as, future ones, and their meanings ring through most of the nation’s daily lives.
References to Teresa Heinz Kerry’s past soaked her address to the National Convention, but references to her present and future were sparse. Although “John believes in a bright future,” Teresa’s views are pushed to the wayside. Her choice of language when discussing the campaign and the position to which her husband aspires, seems to estrange her from the issues and candidate she is describing. Throughout the entire speech, she calls John Kerry her husband only twice, and her family is never mentioned. In stark contrast to the importance of the familial unit discussed in Mrs. Bush’s address, Mrs. Kerry’s speech is empty of any of these familiar descriptions.
Both addresses seem to emphasize two of Murray Edelman’s myths that are discussed by Dan Hahn. The rhetoric used throughout each of these speeches accentuates the ideas that “our leaders are benevolent heroes who will lead us out of danger and the function of the citizen is to sacrifice and work hard to do the bidding of the leaders” (Hahn, 118). Mrs. Bush’s husband will “protect our country and defeat terror,” and “with [the citizen’s] help” he will continue to do so. Mrs. Kerry promises her spouse will “protect our nation’s security,” while “together we lift everyone up.” The stress placed on these myths throughout both addresses, along with Teresa Kerry’s metaphorical language and Laura Bush’s familial anecdotes, highlight the importance of rhetoric within any political address. Through these tactics these two women emphasize the significance of the role of women as citizens and voters, as well as the value of their husbands’ achievements and aspirations in connection to the Presidential office.
When discussing the various speeches given at the Republican National Convention, Peter Weyrich said: “Teresa Heinz Kerry’s speech to the Democratic Convention was all about Teresa. Laura Bush’s speech was all about the president” (Cybercast News Service). The language throughout each of these speeches makes this statement extremely evident, and the effects of each woman’s language selection are evident as well. Although it seems as though both women alienate their target audience within various segments of their address, the overall sentiment of each speech resound strongly. The definite contrast, not only between the mood of each presentation, but also the topics discussed, forces the audience of these speeches to question the roles played by each of these important women. While both women seem outdated in the development of woman’s role in society, each speaker places emphasis on a very different aspect of this situation. Laura Bush’s “stand behind your man” tactic may ring true in some women’s ears, while Teresa Kerry’s “stand near your man” tactic may have a solid affect on other women. Although each speech has moments of lacking, the message of each woman’s address is evident: my husband is the perfect man for the job.
