Sources used in this document:

President George W. Bush's purpose is the same, though he achieves it in a different way. Instead of beginning his speech with logical reasoning, showing how the terrorist attacks were wrong, premeditated, and likely to expand into further conflict, he appeals to the emotions of his listeners. In a style much different then Roosevelt's, Bush paints images of horrific deaths, and seeks to win his audience's emotions by calling the victims "moms and dads," as well as "friends and neighbors" (Bush). He continues, not by discussing the seriousness of the war or likelihood of the terrorists attacking again, but instead by praising the United States, advocating its positive aspects. This style of appealing to his audience is evident, once again, in his speech to the American people on the anniversary of the attacks in 2006. In this speech, Bush discusses the children who "still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms," but who cannot be consoled because their fathers have been killed by terrorists. Thus, Bush also asks for Congress and the American people to support him going to war, but by using a much different technique than Roosevelt.

The difference in technique between Roosevelt's speech, which was delivered in 1941, and Bush's two speeches, delivered in 2001 and 2006, suggest a difference in American Values. When Roosevelt presents a logical argument, drawing attention to the ways in which the Japanese will continue to harm unless they are stopped, he suggests knowledge of his audience. Knowing that his audience will respond to this kind of logical appeal, he uses this to gain their support. When Bush uses his emotional appeal, he suggests a similar knowledge of his audience, but acknowledges that his audience's values are different -- they value emotion and emotional arguments, rather than logical ones.

Thus, both Theodore Roosevelt and George W. Bush advocated similar actions when they delivered their speeches after the two "day[s] which will live in infamy" (Roosevelt); they both wanted citizens and Congress to support the United States' entry into war. The fact that they went about this in two different ways -- logic vs. emotion -- however, suggests different American values. But even though these speeches suggest that Americans today value emotion over logic, this is still a point of contention. Will Americans be more likely to act if they are given emotional arguments rather than logical ones? Television commercials that show the sad faces of children or animals and ask for donations, sad stories about victims of disease that contain requests for volunteers, and smiling, happy people on the cover of clothes catalogs certainly suggest that those doing the advertising in the United States feel this way. But do U.S. citizens also fall for the well-founded, logical argument? Maybe, but the differences between Roosevelt and Bush's speeches suggest otherwise.