Two Extremes
A Rhetorical Evaluation of the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial Race
In the 2018 gubernatorial election, the candidates are Republican, and Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams, the minority leader in the GA House of Representatives. They have been polling almost even. On October 25th, two days after their debate, Abrams was polling at 46% and Kemp at 44% among registered voters. Polls show Abrams leading among minority and younger voters but Kemp is leading among rural voters, men, and non-college graduates.
The issue of education, specifically public education, has been a point of controversy in this election. Abrams said she will be the “public education governor.” She supports funding public schools and has argued against Student Scholarship Organizations (SSOs), programs that give donations to private schools. She argued that “Our schools endured 16 straight years of austerity cuts… we must maintain full-funding.” Her use of the inclusive “we/our” is intended to make her audience, those with kids in public schools and other liberals, feel that the issues are affecting everyone (“our schools”). Not only is she appealing to her audience by advocating for increased funding where her supporters are, she is also encouraging them to get out and vote by making it the people’s responsibility to improve them.
Kemp supports SSOs, saying that he “understand[s] the argument about that [diverting revenue], but…we’re going to do any and all to allow to have school choice… because it’s good for parents to have options to do the best for their child.” His support of SSOs is appealing to upper class voters and those who may be on the fence about these programs by using empathy. Kemp says he wants to give parents a choice to “do the best for their child,” understanding the goals of parents. This appeals to his supporters effectively, and although understanding the opposing argument is sometimes a strength, he does not effectively counter it.
Another divisive issue in this election is health care and Medicaid expansion. Conservatives notoriously advocate for smaller government and Kemp keeps this tradition, saying that “the last thing we need is more government. We need a patient-centered system that’s right for Georgia not California.” Kemp’s conventional view on this issue, as well as distinguishing Georgia from other states, appeals to the traditions of his party (small government and state pride) of his strong Southern Republican base. If Georgia Republicans were unsure about him before, this cemented their support for Kemp, someone who values the same things they do and has the same traditions.
Abrams, however, supports Medicaid expansion, as many Democrats do. Appealing to her base and supporters on Medicaid, she argued that “Medicaid expansion is a critical need in the state of Georgia… We’re forfeiting $8 million a day by our intractable refusal to expand Medicaid.” Her hyperbolic use of the words “critical” and “intractable” was meant to inspire her voters to care about the issues by making them seem worse than they might be in reality. If Abrams is able to convince her audience that the issue is bad enough for them to get involved, then they will do so by voting. In this way, Abrams’ use of language is more effective than Kemp’s when talking about healthcare in Georgia.
Even though Kemp and Abrams have very different views regarding many issues, they both want to strengthen rural Georgia. Their opinions differ in how this should be done. Kemp wants to “strengthen communities outside of our urban and suburban core. By empowering local leaders and the private sector, we can realize our full potential as a state and create a bright and promising future for all Georgians.” His support of privately owned business and specific mention of rural Georgia appeals to his Republican base and rural supporters. More specifically, Kemp uses the inclusive “we/our” to unite Georgians to support those in other parts of the state. This also includes the voters in the changes that need to be made, giving them the responsibility, inspiring them to get involved by voting.
Abrams advocates for state infrastructure rather than business in rural Georgia. Speaking more broadly, she said “Part of the reason I’m talking so aggressively about infrastructure investment is that we have to think about 10 years from now…20 years from now..and 30 years from now… We have to invest now and build for the future.” Her technique of looking toward the future is less effective than Kemp’s because although Abrams is trying to get her audience to think about their future, which can be inspiring, she is not specific. Rather than glorifying the future, she makes it seem tolerable, which is not using this technique most effectively.
Although Abrams has used language more effectively throughout the campaign, and they have been polling evenly, Kemp will probably win. The last two governors have been Republican and no state has ever had a female African American governor. Georgia has never had a female nor African American governor. Especially because of the divisive nature of today’s politics, and because Kemp has used language somewhat effectively to enthused his base, he will probably win.
Brian Kemp did win the Georgia gubernatorial election. He won with only 1.6 point ahead of Stacey Abrams. I predicted that he would win, and that it would be pretty close, as they were polling evenly during the campaign.
