Campaigner: There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys. I am speaking of Charles Foster Kane, the fighting liberal, the friend of the working man, the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --
Kane: with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State! I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected.
Now, however, I have something more than a hope. And Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected. Now I can afford to make some promises!
The working man -- The working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!
Well, I'd make my promises now if I weren't too busy arranging to keep them.
Here's one promise I'll make, and boss Jim Gettys knows I'll keep it: My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!
Everyone will agree that any campaign speech is the last place to look for lack of bias or other forms or sound, valid legal arguments. Campaign speeches are one of the most bias laden, fallacy suffering, rhetoric filled discussions one can find. This classic example from Citizen Kane was meant to point out exactly such posturing. Note the rhetorical hyperbole used to introduce Kane. He is not just a man, instead he is “the fighting liberal,” and “the friend of the working man.” The hyperbole continues with Kane who paints himself as only having entered the campaign to save the public from lies, corruption, and deceit. The rhetorical devices also describe Jim Getty’s as a corrupt party boss and even as a criminal. He does not provide proof that this is correct, he merely states it.
This second fallacy, that Getty’s is a criminal only appears to be true because Kane wants it to be. He provides no support for this belief and states it as conclusion of which all are aware. Note also that Kane creates a fallacy that he only entered the campaign to fight for right and justice, but never to win. However, as the owner of a newspaper he could have revealed dishonesty through this paper. His entering the campaign served personal needs, but he goes out of his way to claim that they do not.
The biases here are many. One is that Getty’s is a criminal. The other is that Kane is good. The most obvious example of bias, however, is that Kane is the anointed winner of the race for governor. Getty’s is painted not only as a corrupt criminal, but as a loser who has “less than a chance” of winning. In fact, the decision has already been made according to Kane and he will “be elected.”
The speaker’s do not offer or discuss any counterarguments. They only present their own views. Moreover, they present them as foregone conclusions and determinations. Their presentation leaves no room for questions regarding their truth. Also, because he only alludes to promises about how he will benefit the poor, working man, instead of actually specifying how he will help him, there is no place to argue with him. He even provides a statement where he says he is too busy keeping promises to make them. All he does is allude to his great love and fight for rights for the poor, but at no time does he say what he will do for them. He avoids making arguments and only provides premises which are unproven.
The speech is effective due to its emotional pull. It presents a “hero” to people who believe they have been harmed. It provides no instances of these harms nor does it indicate what form the rescue will take. It merely states that injustice has taken place and that Kane will now fix everything. The emotional pull is that many people, poor or otherwise, often believe someone is to blame for any misery they may suffer and Kane gives them something to agree with even though he tells them nothing they can point to as a logical argument.