Tikkun Mada

Rhetorical Analysis of Opening Statements: Pete Hegseth (2025) vs. James (Jim) Mattis (2017)

I asked OpenAI’s GPT-4o to analyze and compare the thematic elements of the opening statements of the two Secretary of Defense nominees of the Trump Administration: James (Jim) Mattis, whose hearing occurred on January 12, 2017; and Pete Hegseth, whose hearing occurred on January 14, 2025. Here’s what I learned.

Linguistic Architecture

James N. Mattis (2017):

  • Structure: Mattis delivers an organized, logically segmented speech, characterized by clear and intentional thematic divisions. The structure follows a systematic approach, ranging from expressions of gratitude, statements of humility and responsibility, acknowledgment of global threats, and outlining of military readiness and strategic objectives.
  • Tone: The overall tone is formal and respectful, underpinning values of duty, service, and humility. He frequently pays homage to tradition and bipartisan cooperation, reflecting a balanced and thoughtful approach befitting a military leader transitioning to a civilian role.


Pete Hegseth (2025):

  • Structure: Hegseth’s speech is less rigidly structured, favoring a more conversational style with personal anecdotes and emphatic calls to action. It features lists and categorical assertions, suggesting a direct and pragmatic orientation.
  • Tone: The tone is assertive and somewhat nationalistic, characterized by strong, decisive language. A focus on a “warrior culture” and “America First” highlights a more aggressive defense stance, appealing to patriotism without significant acknowledgment of global coalitions.

Semantics

Semantics in Mattis’s Statement:

  • Mattis incorporates complex and nuanced language, often embedded with military jargon and diplomatic considerations (e.g., “integrated strategies,” “non-state actors”). His semantics focus on stability, bipartisanship, and collaboration.
  • Keywords such as “collaborative,” “bipartisan support,” and “strategic vision” highlight a multifaceted understanding of shifting global dynamics and the requisite internal coherence needed for defense management.

Semantics in Hegseth’s Statement:

  • Hegseth employs semantic clarity with phrases easily interpreted by a wide audience, using terminology such as “warrior ethos” and “peace through strength” to convey a straightforward and energetic policy position.
  • The language communicates urgency and decisiveness, with terms such as “restoration,” “rebuilding,” and “deterrence,” suggesting a focus on strength and military efficiency over soft-power amalgamation.

Reading Level

James N. Mattis

  • The reading level is higher, reflecting the speech’s formality and complexity. Concepts and language are layered and sophisticated, demanding greater cognitive engagement from an audience familiar with military and governmental operations.

Pete Hegseth

  • Hegseth presents at a more accessible reading level, likely targeting a broader audience. The rhetoric is less intricate, with a simplicity that aligns with clear, directive language, making it easier for general audiences to grasp quickly.

Interesting Trends and Differences

  • Thematic Shift: Mattis primarily addresses comprehensive defense strategy and global partnerships, emphasizing integration and systemic readiness. In contrast, Hegseth focuses heavily on a “warrior culture” with less implied reliance on alliances, promoting an internal, robust defense apparatus.
  • Cultural Reflection: The transformation from Mattis’s diplomatic language to Hegseth’s assertive tone may reflect evolving cultural and political climates, indicating shifts toward more nationalist rhetoric and the prioritization of military identity.
  • Tone Variation: Mattis enunciates a thoughtful blend of military and civilian perspectives, while Hegseth punctuates a clear, action-oriented vision, setting expectations aligned with the militaristic and strategic grit claimed by Trump-era policies.
  • Personal Influence: Hegseth’s speech includes more personal references and direct expressions of gratitude toward family and divine guidance, portraying an intimate and almost populist appeal absent in Mattis’s structured and broad-reaching approach.

Next, I asked GPT-4o to identify a thesis statement as well as strengths and weaknesses of each statement.

James N. Mattis (2025)

Thesis Statement: Mattis’s thesis emphasizes the importance of maintaining and strengthening the readiness, integration, and strategic capability of the U.S. military through collaboration, both domestically and internationally. He champions a multifaceted approach to national defense, balancing hard power with diplomacy and civilian oversight.

Strengths:

  • Comprehensive and Diplomatic: Mattis presents a holistic view of defense that marries military strength with diplomatic efforts, emphasizing the importance of alliances and bipartisan cooperation. This establishes him as a well-rounded candidate respectful of both military and civilian approaches.
  • Credibility and Ethos: His extensive military background and previous government service lend credibility, and his tone conveys respect and humility, fostering trust among his audience.
  • Appeals to Tradition: His references to military tradition and the oath to the Constitution resonate deeply with an audience that values established protocols and the principle of civilian control over the military.

Weaknesses:

  • Complexity: The complexity and formality of his language may not resonate with all audiences, particularly those less familiar with military terminology or diplomatic nuances.
  • Potential Lack of Urgency: The thoughtful and measured tone might seem less urgent in addressing immediate threats, possibly undercutting a sense of pressing action that some audiences favor.

Pete Hegseth (2025)

Thesis Statement: Hegseth’s thesis revolves around revitalizing the “warrior culture” within the Department of Defense and pursuing an America First strategy to increase military readiness, capability, and deterrence, thereby ensuring national security through strength and focused resolve.

Strengths:

  • Direct and Dynamic: His speech is straightforward and animated, effectively communicating his priorities and alignment with Trump’s America First ethos. This directness can galvanize supporters who prefer decisive action.
  • Appeals to Patriotism: The focus on “warrior culture” and national defense resonates with patriotic sentiments, appealing strongly to individuals who prioritize domestic capability and assertive national security measures.
  • Simplicity and Accessibility: By using clearer and more accessible language, the statement is arguably more engaging to a broader audience, ensuring the message and objectives are easily understood and retained.

Weaknesses:

  • Lack of Nuanced Diplomacy: The statement lacks emphasis on international alliances, which could alienate partners or stakeholders who view collaboration as essential to global security.
  • Potential for Polarization: The nationalistic tone and strong association with Trump could polarize audiences, especially those wary of partisanship in defense matters or who prefer a more balanced approach.
  • Limited Discussion of Civilian Control: Compared to Mattis, Hegseth does not give equal weight to the critical role of civilian oversight, potentially raising concerns about a militaristic bias without checks and balances.

Useful Sources

Curtis

Leave a comment

ViralFold / LinkedIn

© 2024-25