Speech Analisis RIchard Nixon"Chekers"

http://www.watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml

Senator Nixon's Checkers Speech

September 23, 1952

My Fellow Americans,

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.

This introduction has Ethos when he talks about his position and his problem and indirectly presents choice over the judgments made to him and about whether to believe them or not.

The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.

The fallacy used in this text is the appeal to tradition by saying that when these charges are pressed against politics, most of them either ignore them or deny them. By saying this he indirectly says that he is better than them because he is going to talk about them.

I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.

Nixon uses rhetoric by values by talking about the confidence that people have in those who run for the vice-presidency. I don’t see any kind of fallacies in this text.

I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.

Nixon plays with Ethos by suggesting he is a great character by talking about this and Pathos by manipulating people’s feelings toward him by saying that he is an honest person.

I am sure that you have read the charge and you've heard that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

Nothing special in that sentence. He simply mentions why he is being charged but doesn’t respond to it yet. This is a brief introduction for him to start talking about his charge and about the truth.

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong—I'm saying, incidentally, that it was wrong and not just illegal. Because it isn't a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, was it morally wrong?

I don’t know why but that part of the speech reminds me to the story of Ishmael. I think that its because it deals with morals and right or wrong. He uses values in this part by referring to the present and the right or wrong but he uses blame as well, although he is blaming himself. I’ve already read the whole speech and don’t understand why did he write this small paragraph. After all, he is blaming himself not others. It just might be another strategy. To manipulate the audience by saying that they know that what they did was wrong and illegal but he still wants to explain why. This might show the audience that he isn’t a liar, that he has morals and that he recognizes his mistakes. This leads up to the action itself.

I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.

He uses Logos by providing facts about on what did he not spend the money and although he doesn’t present physical proofs just now, he will later on the speech. He is again referring by values by I don’t know if it relates much to rhetoric because he still got to talk about values, he’s been accused of stealing money!

And now to answer those questions let me say this:

Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.
It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the Press," some of you may have seen it last Sunday—Peter Edson came up to me after the program and he said, "Dick, what about this fund we hear about?" And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith, who was the administrator of the fund."

And I gave him his address, and I said that you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government.

I don’t see any fallacies in these two paragraphs. He is just justifying why he is innocent and why should people believe so. I think that there aren’t as many fallacies or as stronger fallacies as in
other speeches because his is defending himself against America and therefore he cant afford to lie, he cant afford to cheat. Most of his speech has to be and is based on Ethos, Pathos and Logos because he has to take it all out, and prove his innocence to the American people or as he likes to call them, taxpayers.

And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear, that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaign, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent.

I just don't believe in that and I can say that never, while I have been in the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency, or have I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show that, the records which are in the hands of the Administration.

Once again, uses logos to prove his point and Ethos to strengthen his position.

But then some of you will say and rightly, "Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?"

Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his home and Washington, D.C.

And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office, to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough to hire thirteen people.

And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the Senator—it's paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his payroll, but all of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business. Business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some information about his GI policy. Items of that type for example.

But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.

He is blaming the use of his money to the government, that doesn’t provide enough money for senators to spend on business related issues. He evokes Pathos, by talking about the money spent and by saying that it isn’t as easy as it looks.

Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers?

Well, I know what your answer is. It is the same answer that audiences give me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is, "no." The taxpayers shouldn't be required to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.

But then the question arises, you say, "Well, how do you pay for l these and how can you do it legally?" And there are several ways that it can be done, incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States Senate and in the Congress.

His message in this part of the speech is more of less that he is not doing anything wrong. If anyone is misleading is the people who judge him for things which they don’t know and in fact he does it to prevent citizens to pay for it, because he doesn’t consider it fair. I don’t know if it is exactly a fallacy that we’ve learned but I think it is. It is the manipulation of words to convince the audience that he is a hero while he actually is doing what every other senator has done, the right thing. He implies that he should be recognize for caring for the American people but in fact, that’s his job, he shouldn’t be felicitated for doing that’s what he is supposed to do.

The first way is to be a rich man. I don't happen to be a rich man so I couldn't use that one.

Pathos by evoking emotions and using humor.

Another way that is used is to put your wife on the payroll. Let me say, incidentally, my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the payroll. And has had her on his payroll for the ten years—the past ten years.

What he does is try to look better by making others look worse but in reality, it has nothing to do so it’s a fallacy. Just because he got 50 on math class I’m not an excellent student if I got 70, I’m still below the expected. You aren’t good if you don’t do bad things, you are good if you do good things.

Now just let me say this. That's his business and I'm not critical of him for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point. But I have never done that for this reason. I have found that there are so many deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work that I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the payroll.
My wife's sitting over here. She's a wonderful stenographer. She used to teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when I met her. And I can tell you folks that she's worked many hours at night and many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office and she's done a fine job. And I'm proud to say tonight that in the six years I've been in the House and the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on the Government payroll.

He deviated completely of the main point, whether did he steal money or didn’t. He could apply to Pathos by talking about his wife, etc. He might been using Ethos too, by suggesting he is a great man.

There are other ways that these finances can be taken care of. Some who are lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law. But I haven't been able to do that. I'm so far away from California that I've been so busy with my Senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal practice.

And also as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the relationship between an attorney and the client was 80 personal that you couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before the Government.

These paragraphs aren’t very important for the development of the speech.

And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made, the speeches that I had printed, for the most part, concerned this one message—of exposing this Administration, the communism in it, the corruption in it—the only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home state of California who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make these contributions after I was elected were glad to make.

And let me say I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I'm proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than as my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers.

Finally he talks about the usage of his money. He spent it on his speeches, business trips etc. I don’t think that he deserves to be punished for that. The problem is that people are always trying to make their enemies look bad and what to the innocents get because of that? False accusations and hatred of crowds. This is clearly logos because he provides facts of it on the next paragraphs.

Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that's all right, Senator; that's your explanation, but have you got any proof7"

And I'd like to tell you this evening that just about an hour ago we received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Gov. Sherman Adams, who is the chief of staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign, that an independent audit and legal report be obtained. And I have that audit here in my hand.

I admire his previous preparation of the points in which people might’ve had questions and how he answers them to end up with them having no choice but deny his accusation. Again, Logos but this time with proves.

It's an audit made by the Price, Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law firm and incidentally one of the best ones in Los Angeles.

I'm proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I'd like to read to you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and based on all the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared by the certified public accountants.

“It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator Nixon did not violate any Federal or state law by reason of the operation of the fund, and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith directly to third persons nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon to reimburse him for designated office expenses constituted income to the Senator which was either reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws.

(signed) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher by Alma H. Conway."

There aren’t any fallacies as I see it. On the last paragraphs he provides the so longed evidence of his innocence although some might argue that that he paid them to say this he answers more of this questions in the rest of the speech because this is just the middle of it. If it were up to me I would’ve declare him innocent immediately because as we can see it, he is clearly innocent, he was simply misunderstood.

In my opinion, his speech was based on Pathos and Ethos but depended on Logos to prove his innocence, because as charming as you might be, if you kill someone, you shall be punished. I found it a great speech and in fact its rated as one of the top 10 speeches in the U.S. history. He uses small fallacies that I mentioned but I don’t think they were meant to convince them because he had no further evidence but I see his fallacies as strategies to spice up his speech and strength his position and alter the decision of his fellow Americans.

I honestly find this speech great because it uses real evidence and all all-round strategy to convince the public and show his point. However, as I said before, this speech this different to most others because it is answering accusations and most of them aren’t meant to do that.