Tranquility: JFK Addresses Crisis in Cuba

By Alondra Olvera

Tranquility: JFK addresses crisis in Cuba

Imagine hearing a televised presidential speech that essentially informs you of a possible Nuclear War. How would you react? Presidents are leaders that are often faced with the challenge of giving their audience the most crucial news. As a result, they must dominate the usage of language and words to prevent the country from panicking by assuring them that the decision taken is the best for the nation. Many people have studied president’s speeches when they deliver information of a dangerous situation the country is encountering. It is significant to study the way world leaders use certain words when giving threatening news to the public in order to comprehend the language techniques utilized to avoid chaos in the audience when faced with a concerning account. I will be highlighting some authors that analyze president’s language when delivering similar news of threat to the American public. Afterwards, I will be analyzing president’s John F. Kennedy’s speech of the Cuban Missile Crisis to understand his language techniques and word usage when informing the audience of a menacing situation such as a Nuclear War. It is important to take into consideration the speech delivered by Kennedy because it is one of the historical events that language and word usage is important to calm the audience. Additionally, if the United States ever encounters another dangerous situation such as the one in 1962, then the president will have an idea of how to manage the situation and know the optimal way to utilize language to calm the American public.

Several ways in which this “calm” language is utilize can be found in presidential speeches that are emphasized by different authors. Interestingly, one of the most analyzed presidential speeches that allow the understanding of techniques used are those by the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. I will describe two authors that interpret language techniques included in these presidential speeches. For instance, Susan Stoudinger Northcutt is the author of the “Analysis of Bush’s War Speech.” Her analysis of the presidential speech is that often the speaker provides a claim which is later supported by evidence. Northcutt acknowledges that Bush uses “historical analogies,” which occur when presidents reference historical events which should be taken as lessons for the current decision they are announcing, “personalizes the conflict”, and practices the “appeal” for public support (Northcutt 127). Northcutt claims that George H. W. Bush exercises the appeal for public support and states the direct quote of the president asking for help as evidence. However, fails to acknowledge the specific words used and simply states the phrase and moves on to another thought. It is important to look at the specific context of the sentence to understand the method used that led to the president appealing for support from the American public. Similarly, Donileen R. Loseke analyzes George W. Bush 4 different speeches on the “Story of September 11.” Based on the analysis, Loseke explains how a president will attempt to create feelings of sympathy, fear, and emotion. By utilizing the technique of provoking these feelings a speech will flow as a “melodrama,” in which there will be the presence of victims, villain, and heroes (Loseke 497). The victims in presidential speeches will be the American public, the villain will become the country that is imposing the threat on the United States, and the heroes are those that sacrifice their lives for the country. Even though, Loseke is successful at examining presidential speeches as a melodrama and “emotion codes,” she immerses herself in this comparison resulting in the absence of examining one speech in detail and prove her idea with specific examples, instead of utilizing multiple statements from multiple speeches (Loseke 500). By analyzing only one speech at a time the identification of presidential word usage and its emotion codes will be made clear.

An example of an effective use of word choice and emotion could be seen in the presidential address during the Cuban Missile crisis, due to the pressures of nuclear missiles being installed by the Soviet Union in the island of Cuba. President John F. Kennedy had no choice but to face the country and inform them about the threatening situation occurring. There are various interpretations of the speech that will reflect the language techniques. For instance, David T. Jones reviewed the address and created a summary instead of analyzing the methods that Kennedy used to communicate the message to the public. Jones summarized the speech using a combination of in-text- quotations and his own words. Furthermore, he included the word “dramatic” to describe the speech and how Kennedy made it sound “belligerent”, however he lacks the explanation that led to this emotion (Jones). If Kennedy is a leader of a nation that can use language to make Jones feel certain emotions, then Jones should have limited the summary and analyze the word usage that provoked those feelings. Furthermore, Jamie Long and Sean Swett, were other authors that decided to analyze Kennedy’s speech from October 22nd , 1962. The authors demonstrate how Kennedy made the public “aware” of the situation by “clearly” explaining to the American people that he “was uncertain of the outcome” (Long et al). The authors clearly demonstrate how presidents share their point of view in order to connect and be at the “level” of the American public (Long et al). The president will portray an image of the meaning of being American and once they gain the “trust” of people they will establish their policy and will attempt to provide comfort in the audience (Long et al). Long and Swett were able to share their interpretation of the speech but lacked the constant references to other characters involved in the crisis.

Consequently, every author has fair points when analyzing presidential speeches, but often time seem to lack a reference to secondary characters involved in the situation. However, they all lack the analysis of word usage and techniques that those presidents use to calm audiences in a situation of danger. For instance, Northcutt identifies the techniques used by the president but does not explain the impact that those techniques have on the audience. Similarly, Loseke analyzes four speeches and examines the emotional codes such as sympathy, fear, and anger, but once again fails to reveal how it will produce a feeling of calmness in the audience. The authors that analyze the speech of Kennedy, which is the one I will be emphasizing, interpreted and summarized the speech in their own words but fail to explain how his techniques and word usage sooth the audience and prevents them from panicking. It is significant to look at Kennedy’s speech specifically because it is an event that announces nuclear threats which will lead the public to encounter feelings of panic. By analyzing the word usage in Kennedy’s speech, people will learn the chosen words to provoke a comforting feeling in the American public when delivering threatening news such as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The methods I will use to analyze the presidential speech on the Cuban Missile Crisis, is focusing on the language technique of word repetition. I will be counting the number of words that are frequently used in the speech. By repeating certain words, the leader will want to provoke a calm emotion in the audience which will be determined through my own interpretation. I will also look at the reference technique in the president’s speech, to comprehend the allusions that will portray a feeling of calmness in the public. I will determine that there will be a calming effect in the audience through the fact that the audience did not resorted to paranoia and were calm enough to support Kennedy’s blockade decision. The following survey was released by Timothy J. McKeown which reveals the public opinion a year after the Kennedy’s speech.

The results demonstrate how Americans still supported the continuation of a blockade in November 1963. The survey results reveal how in November 1963, 67% of voters supported the “resumed blockade compared to more violent options,” which was JFK’s initial solution after acknowledging the nuclear missiles established in Cuba. (McKeown 74) This data reflects how the U.S public was calm enough after the speech to accept and support the blockade that Kennedy established as a policy to deal with the crisis.

On October 22 of 1962, President Kennedy decided to deliver a speech on live television to inform the American public and other countries of the threatening situation the country was encountering. The following speech has been transcribed into a historical piece of writing that documents the words Kennedy used to portray the crucial news at the same time offering his decision that will calm the public.

Introduction of Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech:

“Good evening, my fellow citizens: This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive Missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.”

Kennedy’s speech illustrates very quickly the situation that the United States is facing by mentioning extremely early a “nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere”, this reflects how J.F.K was not providing extraneous information and was being straightforward when addressing the public (Kennedy). It is significant that a leader will have the courage to deliver the news to the American society as soon as the speech begins because it will set a serious tone that will allow the audience to maintain their attention on the rest of the speech, instead of instantly panicking. The fact that he uses the word Western Hemisphere, in comparison to the United States, reflects that the leader refers to all the countries in South America, Central America, and North America. In the next section of his speech, Kennedy goes into depth with the strength and danger of the missiles.

“Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 a. m., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail.

The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.”

[Kennedy continues explaining the situation in Cuba]

“Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents an efficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.”

John F. Kennedy includes that the missiles can reach long distances including “Mexico City, the Panama Canal, Central America,” and other countries that belong to the Western Hemisphere (Kennedy). Kennedy includes 7 points policy in his speech for the “defense of’’ the United States and “the entire Western Hemisphere” (Kennedy). Presidents ensure to include a plan in their speech to reflect that they are prepared, and the nation should not worry about the threat.

“Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority end trusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:

First: To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military in equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of I948-

Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS, in their communiqué of October 6th, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized.

Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Fourth: As a necessary military precaution., I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby alert basis.

Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements-and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted.

Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U. N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted.

Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction-by returning to his government's own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba- by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis- and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions.”

It is significant how he highlights in his third point that if a missile was launched to any country of the Western Hemisphere then it will cause the United States to fire back at the Soviet Union. The reason that Kennedy constantly repeats the word “Western Hemisphere,” 6 times exactly, in his address is to show the American public that the United States was not the only one in danger (Kennedy). The fact that there are other countries that can act as allies for the U.S will calm the audience by making them feel that they belong to the majority against one threat, in that case the Soviet Union. Therefore, a technique utilized is that leaders will try to involve and reference other countries to acquire their support and take advantage of the support provided to comfort the public.

In addition, another way in which the president provides comfort to the public is through the emphasize used of the words “our” (mentioned 48 times) and “we” (stated 20 times) to create a feeling of belonging directed to the audience. The technique of using first person pronouns in the speech reveals inclusion from the president’s side letting the audience know that he is with the nation in the same dangerous situation. If the president speaks with those pronouns the public will feel that they have the support from the leader and will no longer take the threatening news with chaotic feelings and replace them with comforting thoughts because they are not alone and can count on a leader. Usually, feelings of panic and uneasiness derive from not knowing what to expect. The U.S public was experiencing this emotion due to the absence of knowledge with the future of the country under the threat of nuclear weapons. However, President Kennedy introduces his plan of a “quarantine,” or a blockade that was used to prevent the introduction of more nuclear weapons (Kennedy). He mentions this plan after introducing the problem of nuclear weapons in this next section:

“First: To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military in equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of I948-”

The fact that the president has a plan to deal with the dangerous situation tells the American public that the nation is prepared and will calm them down because they will know how to face the unsettling situation. Therefore, leaders commonly state in their speech the policies they will implement which will demonstrate the audience that they should not worry and panic because there is a set plan. This leads to another technique a world leader creates which is claiming that the country is not responsible for the event of danger. The following section of his speech the president introduces the role of the United States in the crisis.

“For many years, both the Soviet Union and the United States, recognizing this fact, have deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history-unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II-demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the bull's-eye of Soviet missiles located inside the U. S.S. R. or in submarines.

In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger-although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat.

But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles-in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy-this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil- is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe.

The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere.”

In the role of the nation in the Crisis, Kennedy assures how the U.S has never established nuclear weapons in other lands “under a cloak of secrecy and deception” (Kennedy). Moreover, Kennedy claims how the United States is “adjusted to living daily on the bull’s-eye of Soviet missiles,” and being exposed to constant danger (Kennedy). He states how the United States has “no desire to conquer or dominate any other nation,” and it is “opposed to war” (Kennedy). All the prior characteristics that Kennedy mentions, reveal the danger the country is exposed to and how it plays no role in expanding war which formulate the innocent and almost victim image of the United States. By producing this image, the audience will believe that the U.S has no fault and will feel that they should maintain the calmness because the country has done nothing wrong. If the American people are persuaded that their country is innocent, then they will be mentally calm from feeling the blame of provoking a nuclear war. Finally, Kennedy alludes to God in his closure of the speech.

“Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right-not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you and good night.”

He also states how the goal of his policy is to maintain “peace”, the term “peace” is repeated 13 times. The term “peace” is subconsciously what he aims the public to feel after listening to his address. The allusion to religion reveals how presidents tend to refer to religion in their speeches because that is where most of the people feel a sense of safety. Presidents will take the majority’s beliefs and reference them in their speech. By alluding to religion, the public will be influenced to focus on their faith to achieve calmness, instead of focusing on the panic and negative emotions of the Crisis.

In my opinion, if I had heard the speech at that moment, I would feel a sense of calmness. The language techniques such as repetition of pronouns and allusions will be a cause of this emotion. The reason I will feel at ease is because Kennedy made a good decision to inform everyone in the United States and other close nations about the crisis in Cuba. By informing everyone, people would unite and sympathize with each other with the threat being experienced. Additionally, if I had heard him use “our” and “we” in his speech frequently, I would feel involved in the crisis and joined him in his proposed plan. Similarly, I would be aware of what is going on in the nation, strengthening the trust among the public and the U.S president. I would also be calm because I know that the president had a plan and was prepared to deal with the situation. Even though, I know that the country is under a nuclear threat, I would appreciate that the president decided to tell it to the public instead of keeping it a secret as well as knowing that the president had 7 points plan to resolve the crisis. I would also feel a sense of belonging in the crisis as the president referenced God, because I would feel calm enough to focus on my faith instead of panicking and causing more chaos than the one that already existed.

In conclusion, I believe that the analysis of this speech is an example of how a president should utilize word references and word repetition when faced to inform the public of a threatening situation. Additionally, it is important that first year composition students understand the power of utilizing these similar techniques in language because they are effective when trying to provoke an emotion. Kennedy ensured to reference the current situation as soon as he addressed the nation to inform the purpose of his speech and add anticipation to calm the public. Similarly, first year compositions students should reference the context of their writing to inform the audience the purpose of the assignment. If students wanted to make the audience feel that they belong they could constantly repeat the words “we” or “our”. Similarly, students can imitate how Kennedy introduces a plan, in this case a blockade, to prove to the audience that he was prepared and provoked calm feelings within the American population. In the case of the students, they can show they are prepared by gathering evidence from their research and include allusions in their writing to reference ideas that can benefit their claim. Once students have enough evidence, they can use it to prove a certain claim in their writing that can provoke a specific feeling and impact that the writer desires. By learning the language techniques in historical figures, such as President Kennedy, students will acquire skills that can be incorporated in their writing when wanting to emotionally impact an audience.

Works Cited

Jones, David T. "Cuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nation." American Diplomacy, 2008.

Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A187797713/AONE

u=txshracd2633&sid=AONE&xid=d2cf28fd. Accessed 26 Feb. 2019.

Kennedy, John F. “‘President J.F.K- TV Address to the Nation -on Cuba.’” History Central.

22 Oct. 1962. Washington, D.C. www.historycentral.com/documents/JFKCuba.html.

Long, Jamie Thomas, and Sean Swett. “John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis: An

analysis of Crisis Communication within our Nation.” Jamie Thomas Long. Wordpress,

n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2019. https://jamiethomaslong.wordpress.com/writing-2/john-f

kennedy-and-the-cuban-missile-crisis-an-analysis-of-crisis-communication-within-our

nation-written-by-jamie-long-and-sean-swett/

Loseke, Donileen R. “Examining Emotion as Discourse: Emotion Codes and Presidential

Speeches Justifying War.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, 2009, pp. 497–524.

Web. 27 Feb. 2019. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40220142.

McKeown, Timothy J. “The Cuban Missile Crisis and Politics as Usual.” The Journal of

Politics, vol. 62, no. 1, 2000, pp. 70–87. Web. 27 Feb. 2019. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2647598.

Northcutt, Susan Stoudinger. “An Analysis of Bush's War Speech.” International Social Science

Review, vol. 67, no. 3, 1992, pp. 123–129. Web. 27 Feb 2019. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/41882062.