Persuasion in Mitt Romney’s Faith in America

Persuasion in Mitt Romney’s Faith in America

As soon as I received your email that the persuasive artifact we were going to be writing on was Mitt Romney’s Faith in America, my immediate reaction was a feeling of annoyance. Despite the fact that I am very liberal, I have had my own feelings about how the government “approaches” issues on church and state. Agreeing with millions of Americans, a candidate’s religious affiliation should have a very small or no impact on their position in government. While Mitt Romney was running for the Republican ticket, a main concern America had was if he could differentiate his religion and his job. The Faith in America speech goes on to talk about how he would run the country while being associated with one of the most intense religious groups in the world.

Seeing as how Faith in America mainly addresses Romney’s ability of being president while being Mormon, he had to approach this speech by knowing the attitude of the audience. This is a clear example of Social Judgment Theory. The theorist of Social Judgment Theory, Mazafer Sherif, believed that knowing a person’s attitudes on a subject can provide you with clues on how to approach a persuasive effort. Meaning that when people receive a message (whether is verbal or nonverbal), they immediately evaluate the content of the messages based on their stance on that particular message. There are three categories a person’s attitudes may fall under: 1. Latitude of acceptance 2. Latitude of rejection and 3. Latitude of Noncommitment. Sherif believed that “true persuasion” occurs when persuasive messages fall into a receiver’s latitude of noncommitment or in the latitude of acceptance.

Since many people were skeptical of Romney, his speech had to include information that would be accepted by the listeners. In one part of his speech he says “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.” By stating this it tells the listener what they want to hear, that he will draw the line between his church and if elected, his job as president. This falls into the latitude of acceptance mainly because the audience wants to know that their country will continue the separation of church and state. If Romney said that he wanted to take the beliefs of his church and incorporate them within the decisions he would make as president, many people would disagree with his stance therefore resulting in a poor persuasive speech.

Another example of how Romney’s speech included ideas that people would find “acceptable” was when addressing how our founding fathers ultimately turned to God when the country was faced with danger. He says, “There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.” By addressing the founding fathers, he is able to show the audience that our country has come from a long line religion. Although he states that he would not let his beliefs interfere with his candidacy, addressing the history of our nation is something everyone can accept and even possibly relate to.

Other than having the Social Judgment Theory applying to Romney’s speech, there were specific persuasive devices included. One device that was clearly used was the use of fear. Throughout his speech, Romney is sure to tell the audience that in order for Freedom to prevail one must involve religion. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” Romney basically threatens the audience that without religion, freedom would not be possible. Our country is built upon Freedom, and is the one thing that remains to be the reason why our country is as amazing as it is. The thought of our freedom being taken away is a very scary idea, and that Romney can assure our nation that he would not allow that to happen.

Another persuasive device that is used is Warmth and Patriotism appeals. Throughout his speech, there are many points when the audience feels touched. He even uses quotes from great past leaders such as Abraham Lincoln to instill a sense of patriotism. As Americans, we have survived, endured and defeated countless battles. By warming the audience up to our nations past, we are more likely to agree with Romney’s words, subsequently being persuaded by his speech.

In almost every speech there are always going to be elements that worked, and elements that didn’t. Although I would never want Romney in office, his speech did make me agree with some of the points he made. Certain aspects that were effective within Faith in America was the fact that Romney tried to connect to people of all beliefs. He wanted to find a common ground that he as the republican candidate could relate to a liberal Jew. He did this by using Aristotle’s Canons. Pathos was a very large part in this speech and appealed to the audience’s sense of identity, their emotions, and their self-interest. Ethos was also evident in this speech because in the beginning he talks about his position in office as governor. By telling the audience of his past history in office, if lets people know that he is credible. Lastly, Romney was dressed to impress. It may sound silly, but he looked very well put together in his speech which can consciously or subconsciously show the audience that he himself is also put together.

The only main aspect that I see within this article is that Romney was short on specifics. Meaning that he did not go into details about his religion. Even though his speech was to aware the public of his intentions to keep the distinction between church and state, the fact that he did not give any facts on his religion could have hurt him. The less the average voter knows about Mormonism, the more likely they are to be mislead, which can result in false allegations about what he believes.