Dismantling the Rhetoric Strategy

Oct 13, 2025 by thesweetdesigns.com 147 views

Reveals Rhetoric Strategy in the 2015 Medan City Pilkada Debate: Fighting Words to win the hearts of the people

The regional head election (Pilkada) is a crucial moment in the democratic process, where regional head candidates compete for the sympathy and support of the people. One of the most significant events in the elections is the candidate debate, where regional head candidates clash arguments and vision and mission to convince the public. This study examined the political communication strategy and rhetoric used by the candidate pair of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the 2015 Medan City Election candidate debate.

Through qualitative content analysis, this research reveals how each pair of candidates uses different communication and rhetoric strategies to captivate the people of the people. The theory of political communication, mass communication, political campaigns, debates, and rhetoric become the basis of analysis, by adopting the principles of analysis of the Aristotle-style rhetoric unit.

Dismantling the Rhetoric Strategy

This research reveals several rhetoric strategies used by candidate pairs in the debate, including:

Ethos: Building Credibility and Self-Confidence

Building credibility and self-confidence by displaying experiences and achievements, as well as emphasizing integrity and commitment to build Medan City. The candidates use their past experiences and achievements to demonstrate their ability to lead the city and make it a better place. They also emphasize their integrity and commitment to building a better Medan City, which helps to build trust and credibility with the public.

Pathos: Attracting Sympathy and Empathy

Attracting the sympathy and empathy of the public by telling personal stories, giving rise to a sense of publicity, and arousing the hope of better changes. The candidates use personal stories and anecdotes to connect with the public and make their message more relatable. They also use emotional appeals to create a sense of urgency and hope for a better future.

Logos: Delivering Logical and Rational Arguments

Delivering arguments and solutions that are logical, rational, and structured, accompanied by data and facts that support their vision and mission. The candidates use data and facts to support their arguments and demonstrate their ability to make informed decisions. They also use logical and rational arguments to build a compelling case for their vision and mission.

Recognizing the Characteristics of Rhetoric

In addition to strategies, research also identifies the characteristics of the rhetoric used by each candidate pair, such as:

Speech Style: Straightforward and Firm or Smooth and Persuasive

Some candidates appear straightforward and firm, while others choose a smoother and more persuasive language. The speech style of the candidates can greatly impact how their message is received by the public. A straightforward and firm speech style can come across as confident and authoritative, while a smoother and more persuasive language can be more engaging and memorable.

Use of Body Language: Facial Expressions, Hand Gestures, and Eye Contact

Facial expressions, hand gestures, and eye contact become a tool in delivering messages and building emotional connections with the audience. The use of body language can greatly impact how the public perceives the candidates and their message. A confident and engaging body language can help to build trust and credibility with the public.

Persuasion Techniques: Direct or Indirect

There are candidate pairs who use direct persuasion techniques by expressing concrete promises, while others choose indirect persuasion techniques by highlighting moral and ethical values. The persuasion techniques used by the candidates can greatly impact how their message is received by the public. Direct persuasion techniques can be more effective in building trust and credibility, while indirect persuasion techniques can be more effective in creating a sense of urgency and hope.

Meaning for the Public

Analysis of rhetoric in the Pilkada candidate debate provides a deeper understanding of the political communication strategy and the efforts of the candidates in achieving people's sympathy. This research helps the public to:

Differentiating Authentic and Manipulative Rhetoric

The public becomes more critical in assessing the message delivered by the candidates and is able to anticipate the potentially misleading rhetoric. By analyzing the rhetoric used by the candidates, the public can better understand their message and make more informed decisions.

Assessing the Quality of the Candidates

Rhetoric analysis can help the public to see the competencies, integrity, and vision and mission of the candidates objectively. By analyzing the rhetoric used by the candidates, the public can better understand their qualifications and make more informed decisions.

Making Rational and Insightful Choices

By understanding the political communication strategies and rhetoric used, the public can choose candidates in accordance with their wishes and hopes for the progress of the city of Medan. This research provides an interesting picture of the dynamics of political communication in the Medan City Election. By mastering the science of rhetoric, the public can become intelligent voters and choose candidates who are truly committed to advancing their beloved city.

Conclusion

This research provides a deeper understanding of the rhetoric used by the candidate pair of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the 2015 Medan City Election candidate debate. By analyzing the rhetoric used by the candidates, this research reveals several strategies and characteristics that can help the public to better understand their message and make more informed decisions. This research provides an interesting picture of the dynamics of political communication in the Medan City Election and highlights the importance of rhetoric in shaping public opinion.

Q: What is the purpose of this research?

A: The purpose of this research is to analyze the rhetoric used by the candidate pair of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the 2015 Medan City Election candidate debate. The goal is to understand the political communication strategy and the efforts of the candidates in achieving people's sympathy.

Q: What are the main findings of this research?

A: The main findings of this research are:

The candidates use different communication and rhetoric strategies to captivate the people of the people.
The candidates use ethos, pathos, and logos to build credibility, attract sympathy and empathy, and deliver logical and rational arguments.
The candidates use speech style, body language, and persuasion techniques to deliver their message and build emotional connections with the audience.
The public can use rhetoric analysis to differentiate authentic and manipulative rhetoric, assess the quality of the candidates, and make rational and insightful choices.

Q: What are the implications of this research?

A: The implications of this research are:

The public can become more critical in assessing the message delivered by the candidates and make more informed decisions.
The public can see the competencies, integrity, and vision and mission of the candidates objectively.
The public can choose candidates in accordance with their wishes and hopes for the progress of the city of Medan.

Q: How can the public use this research?

A: The public can use this research to:

Analyze the rhetoric used by the candidates and make more informed decisions.
Differentiate authentic and manipulative rhetoric.
Assess the quality of the candidates.
Make rational and insightful choices.

Q: What are the limitations of this research?

A: The limitations of this research are:

The research is based on a single case study, which may not be generalizable to other contexts.
The research focuses on the rhetoric used by the candidate pair of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, which may not be representative of all candidates.
The research relies on qualitative content analysis, which may be subjective and biased.

Q: What are the future directions of this research?

A: The future directions of this research are:

To conduct a larger-scale study to generalize the findings to other contexts.
To analyze the rhetoric used by other candidates and compare the findings.
To develop a more comprehensive framework for analyzing rhetoric in political communication.

Q: How can this research be applied in real-world settings?

A: This research can be applied in real-world settings by:

Educating the public on how to analyze rhetoric and make more informed decisions.
Providing training for politicians and candidates on how to use rhetoric effectively.
Developing policies and guidelines for political communication that promote transparency and accountability.

Q: What are the implications for democracy?

A: The implications for democracy are:

The public can become more informed and engaged in the democratic process.
The candidates can use rhetoric to build trust and credibility with the public.
The politicians and candidates can use rhetoric to promote transparency and accountability.

Q: What are the implications for education?

A: The implications for education are:

The students can learn how to analyze rhetoric and make more informed decisions.
The educators can use this research to develop curricula and teaching materials that promote critical thinking and media literacy.
The researchers can use this research to develop new methods and tools for analyzing rhetoric.