Speech On Vietnam Rhetorical Analysis

Following Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson assumed the role of presidency in 1963. During this time, there were little bursts of antiwar sentiment on the political fringes of the United States, but this perspective did not encapsulate the typical American citizen (Morgan 140). Generally, the American imagination of Vietnam was skewed positively. The news was often painted from a positive lens, detailing America’s success and helpfulness in helping South Vietnam gain independence from communism. Coupled with the pressure of assuming presidency after Kennedy’s assassination, he listened intently to Kennedy’s team of technocrats believing that concentrated bursts of violence would quickly resolve the impending nature of North Vietnam’s …show more content…
In Johnson’s “Speech on Vietnam” delivered on September 29th, 1965 at John Hopkins University, he continues Kennedy’s trend of imperialist rhetoric disguised as responsible foreign policy. To start, he argues that South Vietnam’s freedom is in danger of falling under “the deepening shadow of Communist China” ignoring the fact that communism in Vietnam is enacted by the Northern part of Vietnam, and not China (Johnson 1965). The majority of Johnson’s speech draws on imperialist rhetoric, dictating that America has a responsibility to support freedom in a global context, ignoring the very real effects of violence in order to achieve such a valiant claim. In response to the escalating brutalities, Johnson strategically speaks to it from abstract point of view, obscuring the audience’s understanding regarding the amounts of American bodies …show more content…
He even ends his valiant speech questioning “Have we done enough?” insinuating that America needs to be even more involved with Vietnam (Johnson 1965). For antiwar protesters, the obvious answer to Johnson’s question would be an undeniable yes; America has done too much already. As the war escalated from 1965-1967, the antiwar momentum in the states reacted to global violence. As the figurehead of the United States, antiwar rhetoric was thrusted towards Johnson. President Johnson “became more and more a prisoner in the White House” amongst protesters (Morgan 147). Johnson even audaciously argued that he would be more open “to negotiate troop withdrawals” if the protesters stopped their “aggression” (Morgan 147). With these statements, Johnson tactfully projects his own violence onto American citizens in an effort to absolve any blame for his own questionable foreign policies. For Johnson to assert that peace would come sooner “if the American people were united rather than divided” strategically equates the efforts of antiwar demonstrators to be as harmful as actual