I love watching Obama speeches. Part of me gets all excited, because he often finds things to say that tickle a pleasure nerve. I enjoyed his praise for American Teachers. My emotions soared in agreement when he called out the squabbling of Party Dogma, and encouraged the government to unite for the better good. Many of his words sparked a fire within me; that part of me that wants to see change, that wants to believe many of the things he said.

Meanwhile, at the SAME time as being moved by a lot of what Obama had to say, I was suspicious. I expect there were a lot of people who felt the same way. How many times has he, and many of his predecessors, stood up and promised change? How many times have they boasted “job creation”, something they have so little control over? How many of his words were backed by something other than an appeal to the emotions of Americans?

This article, which fact-checks Obama’s speech, suggests that there was very little to go on. Many of his arguments were completely invalid logically, and highly debatable ethically. This suggests that the speech was aimed toward re-election, and not toward change. He relied completely on pathos.

pa·thos (pāˌTHäs) – persuasion by appealing to the reader’s emotions.

Obama is great at the emotional appeal, but that alone falls way short of giving him Martin Luther King status. MLK didn’t simply talk of change, he did it. MLK didn’t just say things to make people like him, he said things that were very hard for some of us to hear, hoping to truly break down walls. If you study MLK’s speeches, they are heavy in emotional appeal, but they are also logically sound and ethically strong, and he backed them up with his actions.

If Obama had been giving a Persuasive Speech for an assignment in class, he might get an admirable grade. Or, his teachers might check his sources.

I will continue to approach politics as optimistically as I can. I want to believe that President Obama will deliver on at least half of the things he boasted during the State of the Union. Meanwhile, I get my quota of hope from another corner of the arena. Here is Ron Paul’s reaction to the speech.

What really gives me hope is that Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for years. He has been voting the same way his entire career. He brought up his problems with the Federal Reserve, with our over-aggressive foreign policy, and our out-of-control government spending back when it was unpopular to do so. He was ridiculed on stage during the 2007 debates, but he stuck to his guns, and spoke for what he believes in – which is the Constitution.

I think real change will begin to move forward in this country if we pay a little less attention to the person in the seat, and a little more attention to the laws that cross their desk. We can more easily check them against their word, and be less swayed by their naked pathos.