Rhetorical Analysis – Argument Claims: Kamala Harris Civil Rights Speech Rhetoric #2

Join me as I perform an argumentation and rhetorical analysis on a speech by Kamala Harris at the 2017 Human Rights Campaign National Dinner. This speech was selected because the similarities and contrasts between the Vivek Ramaswamy speech that I just analyzed. This series breaks down the rhetorical analysis into a series of posts:

• #1: Rhetorical Analysis – Thesis & Line of Reasoning (this post!)
• #2: Rhetorical Analysis – Claims: Kamala Harris Civil Rights Speech Rhetoric (this post!)
• #3: Rhetorical Analysis – Ethos Pathos Logos: Kamala Harris Civil Rights Speech Rhetoric
• #4: Rhetorical Analysis – Devices: Kamala Harris Civil Rights Speech Rhetoric
• #5: Counterargument – Kamala Harris Civil Rights Speech Rhetoric

Subject Analysis Details

• Speech: 2017 Human Rights Campaign National Dinner
• Speaker: Kamala Harris
• Speechwriter: Unknown
• Date of speech: 08/28/2017
• Speech Length: 14 minutes
• Speech Text: Here
• Rhetoric Type: Constitutive Rhetoric
  • provide a collective identity for an addressed audience
  • construct the audience as a subject in history; justifying their identity across time
  • demand that subjects act in accordance/take action with their identity as enacted in history

Rhetorical Situation

• Exigence: The exigence is the perceived growing threat to civil rights protections for marginalized groups, exacerbated by recent political developments under the Trump administration. Harris identifies these threats as an “assault on our deepest values and ideals,” emphasizing that marginalized communities (e.g., LGBTQ+, immigrants, racial minorities) face increased discrimination and fear. Her reference to recent policy changes and societal divides highlights the urgency of reinforcing civil rights and uniting against systemic injustices.
• Audience: Human Rights Campaign
• Purpose:
  • To rally support and solidarity among the audience and the broader public. She emphasizes that “no one should be left to fight alone,” encouraging coalition-building across communities.
  • To inspire action and commitment to defending civil rights. Harris aims to remind listeners of their shared commitment to equality and justice, urging them to “recommit ourselves to the fight we face” and to resist discriminatory practices through activism and civic engagement.

Argument Claims – Definitions

• Policy Claim – advocate for a specific course of action or change in a current policy.
  • example: The government should increase funding for renewable energy research.
• Value Claim – express a judgment about the worth or importance of something, often based on personal beliefs or ethical principles.
  • example: Human life is sacred and should be protected.
• Fact Claim – assert the existence or truth of something and can be tested by examining evidence.
  • example: The Earth revolves around the sun.
    • Empirical Fact Claim – based on observation, experience, or data
    • Theoretical Fact Claim – based on ideas, logic, and reasoning; a theory that has yet to be proven or disproven

Rhetorical Data Analysis – Argument Claims

Here are some of the observations and data insights I thought were worth noting from the argument claims analysis. I included the argument claims data dashboard below this table. Play around with the data and let me know in my YouTube comments if I missed anything of interest.

#	Rhetorical Data Analysis	Commentary
1	Overall data distribution of the 3 claim types throughout the entire speech: Value = 42%, Fact = 46%, Policy = 13%	A logical distribution with a pretty even split between Value and Fact with a few policy claims (calls to action) in between.
2	Establish Identity line of reasoning is primarily in the intro and is 100% empirical fact claims	Kamala Harris provides personal historical facts to establish her identity and build ethos with his audience.
3	Present Policy line of reasoning is in the body and conclusion and is 100% policy claims	This observation makes sense due to the 1:1 correlation between policy claims and the Present Policy line of reasoning.
4	Identify Issues line of reasoning is in the body and consists of 88% fact claims and 12% value claims	Harris primarily uses theoretical fact claims in this LOR. She does support the theoretical fact claims with some supporting empirical fact claims.
5	Connect Values line of reasoning is in the body and consists of mostly value claims at 75%; 25% fact claims	This observation makes sense as Harris uses pathos, allusion, and value claims to connect with her audience and inspire her audience to action.

Rhetorical Data Analysis Dashboard – Argument Claims

• Use the Full Screen icon in the bottom right to expand the dashboard
• Use the pie chart to filter by Line of Reasoning
• Use the Speech Section and/or Paragraph filter by speech section

Rhetorical Analysis – Speech Arrangement Summary

Kamala Harris’s 2017 speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) national dinner is a powerful example of persuasive rhetoric aimed at reaffirming unity, promoting equality, and calling for action. Here’s a breakdown of the rhetorical strategies she uses effectively:

1. Establishing Common Ground and Unity

• Audience Connection: Harris begins with friendly greetings, building rapport by addressing the audience directly. She references her personal connection to HRC since 1999, presenting herself as a longstanding ally to establish trust.
• Unity Through Common Experiences: Harris uses shared struggles, such as “ups and downs, victories and defeats,” which unify her audience under a common purpose. This theme is further strengthened with references to various civil rights movements, highlighting collective resilience.
• Inclusivity: By listing diverse communities (e.g., African Americans, immigrants, LGBT individuals), she emphasizes that unity extends across multiple identities, fostering a sense of collective solidarity.

2. Appealing to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

• Ethos (Credibility): Harris establishes her credibility by sharing personal anecdotes, such as her work with marginalized communities in the late 1990s. This grounds her advocacy in lived experience and positions her as a committed figure in the fight for equality.
• Pathos (Emotion): Emotional appeal is central to Harris’s speech, particularly when discussing issues of discrimination, healthcare, and fear among immigrant communities. Her storytelling style (e.g., the moment of silence when she related to young gay men in the Castro) appeals to the audience’s empathy.
• Logos (Logic): Harris employs logical arguments by citing specific facts, such as the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act and statistics on HIV/AIDS rates among Black and Latino men. This grounds her speech in concrete evidence and gives her argument logical weight.

3. Repetition and “Speaking Truth” Motif

• Repetition for Emphasis: Harris repeatedly uses phrases like “Let’s speak truth” and “Let’s fight together” to reinforce her call for action. The repeated “truth” statements function as declarative moments, urging the audience to confront harsh realities directly.
• Motif of “Truth”: By using “truth” as a recurring theme, Harris frames the issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia as undeniable realities that must be faced head-on. This motif is not just rhetorical but also carries a moral undertone, challenging the audience to adopt a stance of integrity.

4. Historical and Cultural Allusions

• Civil Rights Legacy: Harris draws on her parents’ involvement in the civil rights movement, creating a parallel between past and present struggles for justice. This situates her speech within a larger historical narrative, suggesting that current efforts are part of a continuous fight for equality.
• Allusions to Activist Figures: Quoting Audre Lorde (“There are so many silences to be broken”) and Bayard Rustin, Harris taps into the authority and moral weight of iconic civil rights leaders. This not only honors these figures but also aligns her mission with their legacies.
• Patriotism Reimagined: Harris redefines patriotism to mean actively fighting for justice rather than blind loyalty. Her recounting of performing marriages for gay couples in San Francisco underscores her belief that patriotism is rooted in advancing American ideals of equality and freedom.

5. Strategic Use of Contrasts

• Forces of Division vs. Shared Values: Harris contrasts forces of hate and division with the shared values that bind Americans together. This duality strengthens her argument that unity is a choice and a powerful counter to discrimination.
• “Fight Alone” vs. “Fight Together”: Harris contrasts communities left to “fight alone” with the vision of unity she advocates. By portraying isolated struggle as undesirable, she amplifies the value of collective action.
• Defining Different Types of Patriotism: By contrasting passive patriotism (unquestioning support) with active patriotism (fighting for ideals), she frames her activism as a deeply patriotic commitment to American principles.

6. Conclusion: Call to Action

• Inspirational Close: Harris closes with a motivational appeal, encouraging the audience to “roll up our sleeves” and recommit to the cause. This call to action ties together the themes of resilience and patriotism, empowering her audience to see their advocacy as a form of service to the country.
• Focus on Unity and Love for Country: The final emphasis on fighting “for the ideals behind the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights” reiterates that the struggle for civil rights is also an expression of love for America, wrapping the speech in a sense of purpose and duty.