President Bush’s speech at Pennsylvania State University was definitely enticing and aimed towards the common man. He spoke of creating more jobs via exporting goods, cutting down on taxes, caring more for each other instead of suing one another to financial death, and even made some points about “cleaning house” and how the government should not gain any more power over the American people. He stated his views on certain things in direct contrast to, then known as, Governor Clinton to support his own standing with the public. He promised more funds to be raised for AIDS mid-speech because a man in the crowd was shouting about the topic. This, to me, showed he was really in tune with and showed concern for what the common people cared about. He listened to them and made his entire speech about them. Everything he said was in the public’s best interest as well as his own if he wanted to be re-elected. It worked both ways.
Like Bush’s speech commending the common man, Governor Adlai Stevenson’s speech spoke of a better world for everyone, especially the small business owners. At the same time though, he talked of how corrupt our country had become and of a utopian society he aimed to achieve with his presidency. His campaign is often viewed and studied as what not to do when campaigning for presidency as he lost both times in 1952 and in 1956. His angle was on creating a “New America” by reviving the country spiritually and morally. Bush’s speech spoke specifically of what he would like to change in the nation, in Congress, and so on. Stevenson made some specific notions about helping out the small family farmer, but most of his speech consisted of his grand ideals for a peaceful America being at the head of the game striving for peace, harmony, success, and Christian values. He spoke more of how “we” would achieve a country of brotherhood and economic prosperity and everything else good in the world, which is a great idea but it may sound unrealistic to the public. I gather the people would much rather hear his specific ideas for reform and what major issues his presidency would address. The public as a whole may not share his ideals and to make his whole speech on that may not have been the wisest move. One has to consider their audience and touch on topics to which they can relate. He should have spoken more about tangible things relevant to that time and place than grandiose ideas that may never be achieved by man. His ideals are commendable though.