John McCain and Barack Obama: How They Speak to Voters
The ability to inspire through the spoken word is an important presidential attribute
Speechmaking does not make a president. If it did, Thomas Jefferson, who abhorred public oratory, would rank among the least of America's chief executives. But there is no question that the ability to inspire through the spoken word has contributed directly to the attainments and reputations of many of the greatest presidents. Even more than explaining policies or setting new directions, a president's speech shows how well he hears the people—their hopes, their fears, their best and worst angels—and, most crucially, how he uses what he hears to achieve his goals.
So what do the speechmaking styles of the two presidential candidates tell us about how each might lead?
In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, John McCain's rhetoric was, for the most part, unadorned. McCain's most passionate words and delivery come in his accounts of his discovery of a higher purpose. In this conversion story, a once reckless warrior and individualist is humbled by his experiences but finds something worth fighting for: his nation. McCain may have trouble talking about religion, but he is completely at ease when it comes to the American civic religion. He makes his points mainly through the repetition of key words ("fight" is used more than 30 times in the acceptance speech) and phrases such as, "My country saved me." McCain emphasizes that he is a "maverick" who will put "Country First" ahead of political party. But the language of reconciliation is overshadowed by the language of struggle and solitary striving. He appeals to other Americans to join him in serving the nation, but his urgings lack eloquence ("Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher" is a long way from Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you..."). McCain's oratory appeals to people who want to place their trust in a brave, independent-minded leader who is confident that he knows what is best for the country.
Barack Obama's oratory, at its best, is a kind of mirror, turning the people's gaze back upon themselves and forcing them to ask what they want their nation to be. Obama is a skilled writer who can craft compelling expository and argumentative speeches, as he did in response to the controversy involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But he is at his best (his foes would say his worst) in those speeches that invoke what might be called the civic beatitude: Blessed are the hopeful, for they shall unify and change the nation. This is strikingly clear in his 2004 Democratic convention keynote, the speech that propelled him into the national limelight, and in his stump speeches. Detractors may dismiss this as fluff, but they underestimate its appeal to younger Americans.
The weakness of Obama's speeches is bound up with their strength: a loftiness that is in danger of soaring beyond this world. The repeated invocations of change and hope can be attacked as an empty mantra. Obama can seem distantly professorial. The danger is the appearance of inauthenticity. McCain belittles his opponent's speechmaking skill as an aspect of his "celebrity" appeal. So far, neither line of attack appears to have rattled Obama. His speeches still aim to transcend the fray of politics as usual.
Reader Comments
Eloquence
The ability to express ideas well and with eloquence should not be under rated in any sphere of life where the exchange of ideas is critical Communication skills are an essential role in international relations and every area of government. Barak Obama not only speaks carefully and with attention to language, his attitude is one of attentive respect and he speaks to his listeners, not at them, responding to their questions and comments appropriately. One of the most irritating aspects of listening to Bush or McCain or Palin is their tone of voice and the cadence as well as their inattention to the conventions of two way communication. They sounds like preachers making pronouncements, even in conversations with interviewers. Instead of a relaxed conversational tone appropriate to such interviews, they nearly shout slogans with a vehemence that is irritating and not responsive to the interviewer's style or content of his/her questions and comments. More telling than the average idealogue is able to comprehend,it seems.
Palin and McCain.....more of the SAME!
So much for "supply-side" economics! So much for the wonderful "free market"! What all that theory allowed is for the Wall Street sharks to get what they want for "free". THAT is what Reagan, Bush, Buckley, Friedman, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and all these other "compassionate conservatives" have REALLY been all about. "Deregulation" and "privatization" have been their mantra. They have HATED the idea of "big government" when applied to governmental oversight of corporate and financial institutions, but they LOVE the "big government" when our tax dollars are used to subsidize corporate R&D or to give huge profits to "defense contractors". They HATED "big government" when it means helping common citizens with social programs that are desperately needed. THOSE programs are attacked as "entitlements". Welfare and Social Security are attacked! Unemployment insurance is attacked. Universal healthcare...the very IDEA of it...is attacked. THESE are all derided and labeled "entitlements". When Reagan and Bush instituted massive tax cuts for the very WEALTHIEST of our citizens, THAT policy was NEVER attacked as "entitlements". Tax cuts for the wealthy are always supported by these "compassionate conservatives" on the flimsy and transparent basis of "trickle-down" economics! Greenspan is a charlatan and a tool of the elite. Anyone who has ever undertaken a serious study of American history knows the record. Corporate elites have historically used all the considerable power at their disposal to prevent, thwart, erode, destroy, and reverse any attempt by the general public, through our elected officials, to regulate business activities in such a way as to ensure public safety and welfare.
Karl Rove, Richard Perle, David Addington, Douglas Feith, and all the rest of these neoconservative, shock-troop apologists for corporate thievery have succeeded in forging an unholy alliance with the very conservative Christian evangelical population amongst our citizenry. The Bush Administration has shamelessly degraded our entire quality of life, justifying all manner of destruction to our Constitution, our infrastructure, our citizens' food supply, the safety of our communities, our military, and our very lives. They have done all this while preaching "faith-based initiatives" and "family values"!
Greenspan has been an integral power player in the entire affair. He has preached deregulation for decades! He pretends now to be surprised and shocked that the banks and mortgage lenders did not do a more conscientious job of "self-regulation". This stance by Mr. Greenspan is an INSULT to our intelligence! Does he REALLY expect us to believe that he did not know what would happen if the wolf were put in charge of watching the henhouse? Business has NEVER willingly and effectively regulated itself in the public interest. NEVER! Business HATES the very IDEA of regulation. What part of that equation does Greenspan not understand? The common citizen understands that you don’t put the wolf in charge of the henhouse.
The “economists”, especially Milton Friedman and his disciples, that have spouted all this rhetoric about free markets and supply-side dynamics and privatization have ALL been hoodwinking the American people for decades! A RESPONSIBLE First World society would have a RESPONSIBLE public sector that would RESPONSIBLY manage the business cycle in a way that would bring the greatest benefit to the society as a whole. American government has ALWAYS been hamstrung by our corporate elites, EVEN during FDR’s Administrations. At LEAST during the New Deal SOME sector of the elites acknowledged their responsibilities to society in general. This neoconservative onslaught under Reagan, Bush, McCain, Palin et al has done everything in its power to reverse whatever safeguards were put in place to protect the common citizen! They have pretty much succeeded in trashing our nation!
Tales of Brave Ulysees
The fact that one Media Star( Oprah )can pick a candidate to sell to the upper middle class with the masses then in tow causes any one left with a brain to question motive. Whether a candidate is a well practiced orator should not have that much sway unless something more sinister i.e Orwellian erodes the last defense against the State ,the concept of the INDIVIDUAL.
advertisement
