The Cuban Missile Crisis as a Rhetorical Situation
The Cuban missile crisis marks a time in history when the spread of nuclear weapons was on the forefront of foreign and domestic policy concerns. On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy made an historic speech that addressed the growing concerns of nuclear weapons and Soviet Union aggression. Kennedy’s speech and the actions taken in response, continue to define the United States relationship with Cuba. Kennedy’s speech applies well to Bitzer’s theory on the rhetorical situation, which is defined, “as a natural context of person, events objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance”. I argue Kennedy’s decision, on recommendation of his advisors, to describe the Cuban …show more content…
Constraints have, “power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence.” In the case of Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech, the constraints are inartistic. The constraints are based on documentation and facts from new surveillance and intelligence and Kairos conversations with Soviet Union officials. It is important that the constraints in the Cuban Missile Crisis speech were grounded in fact. By Kennedy defining the events in Cuba as a crisis it was necessary to provide concrete evidence to support the urgency of his decisions to act on the existence of missiles in Cuba. Kennedy’s decision to constrain his speech in a way that was directly supported by his personal conversations with Soviet Leaders, such as, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, added a level of credibility to his argument for action and provided the necessary evidence to discredit the loyalty and honesty of the Soviet Union. Additionally, Kennedy began his speech by citing the surveillance he had received that clearly showed the existence of Cuban missiles. He went on to say that, “this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in the fullest detail”. Further constraining his speech to the necessary and factual details of the Cuban missile …show more content…
After fifty- five years of a trade embargo with Cuba, the Obama Administration has decided to re-establish diplomatic ties and trade relations. As of January 2015, trade restrictions have been “eased to allow the increased export of building materials, United States telecommunications and technology”. The change in diplomatic relations is a juxtaposition to the Cuban relationship at the time of Kennedy’s administration. As a result, many scholars have questioned whether a blockade against Cuba, created during the Kennedy administration, was the right course of action or merely, “misled emotions and overreaction to the Soviet missile deployment”. While I argue that the Cuban missile crisis was in fact a crisis, many argue that the crisis did not warrant the full blockade and end to all ties with Cuba, which were further perpetuated by the crisis and our failure to support Cuban citizens who were suffering from an oppressive communist regime. The decision of Kennedy seems to be grounded in fact, but our decision to re-establish ties, calls into question the true urgency of the existence of missiles in Cuba and our potential failure to help instead of hurt Cuban citizens in their attempt to combat a communist
The Cuban missile crisis marks a time in history when the spread of nuclear weapons was on the forefront of foreign and domestic policy concerns. On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy made an historic speech that addressed the growing concerns of nuclear weapons and Soviet Union aggression. Kennedy’s speech and the actions taken in response, continue to define the United States relationship with Cuba. Kennedy’s speech applies well to Bitzer’s theory on the rhetorical situation, which is defined, “as a natural context of person, events objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance”. I argue Kennedy’s decision, on recommendation of his advisors, to describe the Cuban …show more content…
Constraints have, “power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence.” In the case of Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech, the constraints are inartistic. The constraints are based on documentation and facts from new surveillance and intelligence and Kairos conversations with Soviet Union officials. It is important that the constraints in the Cuban Missile Crisis speech were grounded in fact. By Kennedy defining the events in Cuba as a crisis it was necessary to provide concrete evidence to support the urgency of his decisions to act on the existence of missiles in Cuba. Kennedy’s decision to constrain his speech in a way that was directly supported by his personal conversations with Soviet Leaders, such as, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, added a level of credibility to his argument for action and provided the necessary evidence to discredit the loyalty and honesty of the Soviet Union. Additionally, Kennedy began his speech by citing the surveillance he had received that clearly showed the existence of Cuban missiles. He went on to say that, “this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in the fullest detail”. Further constraining his speech to the necessary and factual details of the Cuban missile …show more content…
After fifty- five years of a trade embargo with Cuba, the Obama Administration has decided to re-establish diplomatic ties and trade relations. As of January 2015, trade restrictions have been “eased to allow the increased export of building materials, United States telecommunications and technology”. The change in diplomatic relations is a juxtaposition to the Cuban relationship at the time of Kennedy’s administration. As a result, many scholars have questioned whether a blockade against Cuba, created during the Kennedy administration, was the right course of action or merely, “misled emotions and overreaction to the Soviet missile deployment”. While I argue that the Cuban missile crisis was in fact a crisis, many argue that the crisis did not warrant the full blockade and end to all ties with Cuba, which were further perpetuated by the crisis and our failure to support Cuban citizens who were suffering from an oppressive communist regime. The decision of Kennedy seems to be grounded in fact, but our decision to re-establish ties, calls into question the true urgency of the existence of missiles in Cuba and our potential failure to help instead of hurt Cuban citizens in their attempt to combat a communist