Generic Criticism of FDR’s First Inaugural and Obama’s Inaugural

The concept of genre is apparent in even our daily lives and relates strongly to interpersonal communication in terms of communication scripts. Certain situations call for certain types of responses and responses within a certain range can be expected and even predicted in any circumstance. When communication takes on a more formal shape and can be analyzed textually, such responses take on interesting facets and can be more easily studied.

While the concept of generic criticism has been present ever since the days of Aristotle, it was best described by Edwin Black, who explained that situational types will recur throughout history, and that by studying these recurrences, we can learn about the types of responses available in certain situations.

Newly-inaugurated President Barack Obama appears to have studied Edwin Black. This is evidenced by his widely-publicized admiration for and study of Abraham Lincoln and his rhetoric. Obama does not disguise the fact that he bases much of his rhetoric on that of his presidential predecessor, Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln, however, is not the only former president whose addresses can be viewed as belonging in the same genre as Obama’s. In this paper, I will discuss Obama’s inauguration speech specifically and its similarities and dissimilarities to another inaugural address: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first.

In terms of situation, there are many parallels between the circumstances under which each man took office. Most obviously, both had the economic situation of the country at the forefront of their minds and agendas. Both were Democrats and seen as innovative in their use of the new media of the time. Roosevelt succeeded Hoover, the most unpopular president up to that time; Obama succeeded Bush, the most unpopular president yet.

There are also differences in situation. Roosevelt stepped up to the plate at a time when the country had already sunk quite deeply into the Great Depression; Obama faces the beginning of such a depression. Obama’s America is entangled in war abroad while Roosevelt’s enjoyed peace with foreign nations. In terms of media, the landscape in FDR’s day allowed for tight control – so much so that the nation did not know their leader was wheelchair-bound. In contrast, today’s media can hardly be stopped from reporting indiscriminately on presidential matters – evidenced by a popular e-card reading “I can’t believe you’re not completely aware of something Obama said or did under 10 minutes ago” (someecards.com).

On the topic of style, there are also many similarities to be observed between the two speeches. Both speak, quite understandably, about the economy in terms that denounce the “unscrupulous” (FDR) who “seek only the pleasure of riches and fame” (Obama). FDR and Obama both attack Wall Street: Roosevelt more strongly with his condemnation of money changers who have “fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization” and Obama more gently when he explained that “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” Roosevelt’s Biblical mention of money changers can also be linked stylistically to Obama’s reference to scripture when he speaks of laying to the side childish things.

Linguistically, both mention the words action and unity repeatedly. Both speak of the enduring nature of the Constitution and mention duties that must now be associated with citizenship.
Stylistic differences seen include Obama’s tendency to address topics clearly at first, so his audience is clearly aware of the issue addressed versus Roosevelt’s habit of diving headfirst into each concern.

Substantively, the two speeches are more divergent than convergent. While Roosevelt’s speech never specifically addresses an international audience, Obama’s does so quite expressly at times (“to those leaders;” “to the people of poor nations;” “to the Muslim world”). FDR’s address spells out a specific plan of action, beginning when he declares that “our greatest primary task is to put people to work,” whereas Obama’s speech purposefully omits mention of plans for policy. Each man feels differently about the moral condition of the country. FDR feels it is strong and calls that belief to the attention of the people when he proclaims that “our distress comes from no failure of substance.” Obama asserts that it is weak and addresses the “sapping of confidence across our land.” Roosevelt addresses the Constitution in a non-Originalist way while Obama refers to it in a more literalist manner.

There are also similarities in substance between the two addresses. Both can be viewed as a call to action of the American citizenry and are aimed primarily at lifting the nation from distressing economic situations.

Future presidents will participate in generic studies of presidential speeches just as Obama studied Lincoln’s and FDR’s speeches in preparing for his inaugural. The use of generic criticism can helpful in almost all spheres of the communication world – from a child learning to interact in Kindergarten to a foreigner hoping to adapt to a new culture to a CEO breaking tough news about layoffs. The proverb that history repeats itself is effectively proven through generic criticism.

Monica Turner
Wilkes University, '10
Communications