by Richard L. Weaver IIIt is a principle I have taught for over thirty years. It is basic to speech-communication courses, and it is essential to understanding what should be the foundation of public-speaking effectiveness. In judging the success of a public-speaking effort, you must look at the substance — support, evidence, and ideas — of the speech, not just the delivery. Delivery is merely a vehicle for conveying the substance. When I learned to put delivery in its proper perspective, it was within the context of Plato’s attack on rhetoric as “mere cookery.”
Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art, while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art. Plato’s perspective on rhetoric has not been uncommon throughout the ages, namely, that rhetoric is no art at all but merely practiced flattery. The “fantastical banquet” of words is “mere cookery in words”; words that are plain and to the point are all that are needed. Through the character of Socrates he concludes it is no art. He goes on at length to explain that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery, and more comparable to cookery than to medicine.
Plato’s perspective was well supported in a column entitled, “Obama is the candidate of passion rather than substance,” (The (Toledo) Blade, Jan. 13, 2008) in which Kathleen Parker
argues that “it’s easy to be seduced by a charming idea with a dazzling smile....It’s all about hope, really.”
Of course, Obama isn’t the first to depend on “grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric” to supply his political pitch. Speech that depends on rhythm and refrain is alluring. It can make anything, even a simple chair, seem magnificent.
It is important to understand here how easily and willingly the public is seduced by the power of speech. Remember that the Nazis put enormous effort into public speaking. A. E. Frauenfeld, a Nazi Gauleiter (leader), wrote in “Die Macht der Rede” in 1937, about the power of speech, “We connect the spoken word with thoughts of the person who spoke it, with his appearance, the sound of his voice, the persuasiveness and passion with which he spoke the words....Speaking is communal; many hundreds or thousands share the enthusiasm.”
Ronald Reagan, a former actor and baseball announcer, understood this. Not only did he speak “in warm, velvety tones that enveloped listeners and made them feel good,” but, too, writes David Gergen, a Reagan speechwriter, in Essence of Power (1984), in his speeches he evoked what America had been and could be again, using terms, stories, and images embracing liberty, heroism, honor, a love of country, and a love of God. These values went deep with Reagan who discovered them from years on the speaking circuit.
There is no doubt that there are times that call for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery. Lory Hough and Aine Cryts, in their online essay, “The Power of Speech,” cite Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” that commemorated the most devastating battle of the Civil War, or his “Emancipation Proclamation” that called for an end to slavery. They cite Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats that helped pull America out of the depression and Ronald Reagan’s speech in 1986 following the Challenger disaster that soothed a stunned nation. President George W. Bush provided one voice following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Hough and Cryts also mention Robert Kennedy’s 1968 impromptu Indianapolis announcement that Martin Luther King, Jr., had just been shot and Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers” speech.
Nixon’s “Checkers” speech, according to Hough and Cryts, is “considered to be one of the most successful political speeches in history. Just chosen as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate, Nixon had to clear his name from charges of having a secret campaign fund. With his wife sitting beside him, he apologized and called on people’s emotions, using these words to end his emotional appeal after explaining that a Texas supporter had sent a cocker spaniel to the family as a gift. “Our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids,” Nixon said affectionately, “loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”
There are times that call for the rhetoric that unites or soothes or commemorates. There are times, as well, that call for impromptu comments that explain or clarify. The bulk of a politician’s rhetoric, however, is carefully planned.
Barack Obama is a powerful speaker. Biblical cadences come naturally to him, just as if he is a great preacher. He has extraordinary rapport with ordinary Americans, and he possesses, as well, a unique ability to articulate, in a generous way, their polite but burning anger at the state and their country. Obama certainly has the potential to “unite” the American public in ways that few, if any, politicians have since Bobby Kennedy.
Obama’s appeal, however, is to the soul (hope). He preaches the politics of “not-yet-here,” and it resonates deeply with his listeners. There is no doubt that his rhetoric soars and takes flight, but it alights nowhere. There is no doubt that he declares that together we can do anything, but he doesn’t mention any of the things we can do. What is missing from his repertoire is a clear articulation of his intentions. Avoiding detailed policy prescriptions, which bore many voters, leaves him open to attacks.
To depend on delivery and high-flown language alone, to the near exclusion of any substance, is an example of what Plato complained about. Obama’s speeches are a “fantastical banquet” of words or “mere cookery in words.” It may be what Americans want, but in no way is it what Americans need. Although some may say this is a time for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery, but I claim, as Kathleen Parker does, “Hope is not a policy.”
“Mr. Obama isn’t just the inevitable dream candidate,” writes Parker, “He is the self-object of Oprah Nation [referring to Oprah Winfrey’s campaigning on his behalf], love child of the therapeutic generation. What he brings to the table,” Parker continues, “no one quite knows. But what he delivers to the couch is human Prozac.”
To be seduced by delivery with little or no substance is to miss what is significant, meaningful, and important. It is to be seduced by the icing and overlook the cake, to judge a book by its cover and ignore its contents, and to be persuaded by facial expressions without noticing what the speaker is saying. It is, however, a testament to the power of speech!
______________________________________________________________________________
For information on the origin and definition of rhetoric, go to the website http://www.brightrockpress.com/popsample.htm
A.F. Nariman, in an essay “Bush’s Speech, All Puff No Substance,” at a website entitled Rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general26/spche.htm) analyzes a speech George W. Bush gave on June 25, 2002, to show that it held up a vision of the promised land but revealed no steps in how to get there — a useful analogy for the “all puff no substance” discussed in the essay above.
For specific populist commentary on a Barack Obama speech, “Obama’s South Carolina Victory Speech,” go to the digg.com website at http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_South_Carolina_Victory_Speech Caroline Kennedy seems to capture his allure the best when she says, “...for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president [a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them] — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." Rhetoric without substance can be inspiring!
______________________________________________________________________________
Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art, while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art. Plato’s perspective on rhetoric has not been uncommon throughout the ages, namely, that rhetoric is no art at all but merely practiced flattery. The “fantastical banquet” of words is “mere cookery in words”; words that are plain and to the point are all that are needed. Through the character of Socrates he concludes it is no art. He goes on at length to explain that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery, and more comparable to cookery than to medicine.
Plato’s perspective was well supported in a column entitled, “Obama is the candidate of passion rather than substance,” (The (Toledo) Blade, Jan. 13, 2008) in which Kathleen Parker
argues that “it’s easy to be seduced by a charming idea with a dazzling smile....It’s all about hope, really.”
Of course, Obama isn’t the first to depend on “grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric” to supply his political pitch. Speech that depends on rhythm and refrain is alluring. It can make anything, even a simple chair, seem magnificent.
It is important to understand here how easily and willingly the public is seduced by the power of speech. Remember that the Nazis put enormous effort into public speaking. A. E. Frauenfeld, a Nazi Gauleiter (leader), wrote in “Die Macht der Rede” in 1937, about the power of speech, “We connect the spoken word with thoughts of the person who spoke it, with his appearance, the sound of his voice, the persuasiveness and passion with which he spoke the words....Speaking is communal; many hundreds or thousands share the enthusiasm.”
Ronald Reagan, a former actor and baseball announcer, understood this. Not only did he speak “in warm, velvety tones that enveloped listeners and made them feel good,” but, too, writes David Gergen, a Reagan speechwriter, in Essence of Power (1984), in his speeches he evoked what America had been and could be again, using terms, stories, and images embracing liberty, heroism, honor, a love of country, and a love of God. These values went deep with Reagan who discovered them from years on the speaking circuit.
There is no doubt that there are times that call for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery. Lory Hough and Aine Cryts, in their online essay, “The Power of Speech,” cite Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” that commemorated the most devastating battle of the Civil War, or his “Emancipation Proclamation” that called for an end to slavery. They cite Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats that helped pull America out of the depression and Ronald Reagan’s speech in 1986 following the Challenger disaster that soothed a stunned nation. President George W. Bush provided one voice following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Hough and Cryts also mention Robert Kennedy’s 1968 impromptu Indianapolis announcement that Martin Luther King, Jr., had just been shot and Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers” speech.
Nixon’s “Checkers” speech, according to Hough and Cryts, is “considered to be one of the most successful political speeches in history. Just chosen as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate, Nixon had to clear his name from charges of having a secret campaign fund. With his wife sitting beside him, he apologized and called on people’s emotions, using these words to end his emotional appeal after explaining that a Texas supporter had sent a cocker spaniel to the family as a gift. “Our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids,” Nixon said affectionately, “loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”
There are times that call for the rhetoric that unites or soothes or commemorates. There are times, as well, that call for impromptu comments that explain or clarify. The bulk of a politician’s rhetoric, however, is carefully planned.
Barack Obama is a powerful speaker. Biblical cadences come naturally to him, just as if he is a great preacher. He has extraordinary rapport with ordinary Americans, and he possesses, as well, a unique ability to articulate, in a generous way, their polite but burning anger at the state and their country. Obama certainly has the potential to “unite” the American public in ways that few, if any, politicians have since Bobby Kennedy.
Obama’s appeal, however, is to the soul (hope). He preaches the politics of “not-yet-here,” and it resonates deeply with his listeners. There is no doubt that his rhetoric soars and takes flight, but it alights nowhere. There is no doubt that he declares that together we can do anything, but he doesn’t mention any of the things we can do. What is missing from his repertoire is a clear articulation of his intentions. Avoiding detailed policy prescriptions, which bore many voters, leaves him open to attacks.
To depend on delivery and high-flown language alone, to the near exclusion of any substance, is an example of what Plato complained about. Obama’s speeches are a “fantastical banquet” of words or “mere cookery in words.” It may be what Americans want, but in no way is it what Americans need. Although some may say this is a time for seminal speeches when substance matters less than delivery, but I claim, as Kathleen Parker does, “Hope is not a policy.”
“Mr. Obama isn’t just the inevitable dream candidate,” writes Parker, “He is the self-object of Oprah Nation [referring to Oprah Winfrey’s campaigning on his behalf], love child of the therapeutic generation. What he brings to the table,” Parker continues, “no one quite knows. But what he delivers to the couch is human Prozac.”
To be seduced by delivery with little or no substance is to miss what is significant, meaningful, and important. It is to be seduced by the icing and overlook the cake, to judge a book by its cover and ignore its contents, and to be persuaded by facial expressions without noticing what the speaker is saying. It is, however, a testament to the power of speech!
______________________________________________________________________________
For information on the origin and definition of rhetoric, go to the website http://www.brightrockpress.com/popsample.htm
A.F. Nariman, in an essay “Bush’s Speech, All Puff No Substance,” at a website entitled Rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general26/spche.htm) analyzes a speech George W. Bush gave on June 25, 2002, to show that it held up a vision of the promised land but revealed no steps in how to get there — a useful analogy for the “all puff no substance” discussed in the essay above.
For specific populist commentary on a Barack Obama speech, “Obama’s South Carolina Victory Speech,” go to the digg.com website at http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_s_South_Carolina_Victory_Speech Caroline Kennedy seems to capture his allure the best when she says, “...for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president [a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them] — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." Rhetoric without substance can be inspiring!
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact Richard L. Weaver II
The power of speech continues to work wonders . . . we will always have another great speaker - let's hope we always look behind the curtain to find the wizard rather than simply being amazed by the special effects!
ReplyDeleteThank you maxryan for your comment. You have absolutely hit the nail on the head. Considering the power of speech to mesmerize, the effect of the words to enthrall, and the capacity of language to captivate and transfix, I'm afraid people do not look behind the curtain. They enjoy their bedazzlement, and in their amazement and exultation would rather vote for and support the special effects!
ReplyDelete