Good speakers are rare. Great speakers are rarer, but rhetorical mastery should not be confused with sound principles and good ideas. We all have witnessed the nearly worshipful attention paid to Barrack Obama’s speechmaking skill when he was running for the presidency. Now that he has been in office for almost three years I assume that many of you share my vomit-in-the-mouth reaction whenever he approaches a microphone (usually every day) and engages in one of his repetitive, stammering and “uh-laden” painful addresses. His glaring weakness as a leader and his distorted priorities have demonstrated that eloquence alone is not enough for the leader of the free world---what’s left of it.
One of the more unfortunate aspects of our current political system is that people who speak well frequently say very little. Their verbal skills are directed towards disguising their true thoughts rather than revealing them. They have developed the ability to speak in “sound bite” fashion while failing to provide much detail that could open them to criticism. We citizens are somewhat responsible for the politicians developing that trait because of our short attention spans. We would rather have a brief unrefined answer than face the prospect of a long detailed explanation. As a consequence, some of our political speakers become frustrated by the short-answer format and respond with statements or ideas that may unsettle us. They have complexity and nuance to share, but mass media and our dismal listening habits combine to make their messaging difficult.
With 9 or more candidates vying for the Republican nomination we have an opportunity to compare and contrast rhetorical styles. Also, we have ample opportunities to analyze candidates’ statements for clarity and information. Each of the candidates has some unique attributes, but it is clear that some of them have either been coached or have diligently worked to hone their speaking style for the television/computer age. Others either shrug off the needed alterations for media type speaking or feel the need to thoroughly explain their positions despite the constraints imposed by the media and the audience.
To illustrate how the candidates vary with the rhetorical styles I will attempt to perform a “quickie” analysis of each of the GOP contenders. The two who have the most highly developed delivery styles in my view are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. There is a vast difference between them, however, because Romney’s utterances for the most part are designed to minimize potential damage whereas Newt’s are directed towards innovation. Both of them are conscious of time constraints, but Newt’s professorial style sometimes causes him to drift outside the suggested time limit. Mitt’s precise and clipped answers suggest a monumental rehearsal regimen, and he sometimes fails to utilize his entire allotted time. Herman Cain’s rhetorical toolbox is fast approaching the previous two. In the early stages of the campaign he left too many unanswered questions on the table, but as he becomes more comfortable in the spotlight, his answers and statements have been more fully developed.
Rick Perry has a plain folksy delivery, but when he delivers a statement or answers a question, he appears to circle before landing the punch line. Personally, I get frustrated with this approach because I prefer to have more “meat” in the sandwich rather than a lovely garnish with a small entrée. Michele Bachmann has adopted a combative style that seems to work for short bursts of intensity but at times appears to lack thorough substance. Rick Santorum, too, has an intense speaking style that slides into passion when he is particularly concerned about a specific issue. He has not mastered the short answer and appears compelled to filibuster with his passionate delivery.
Jon Huntsman seems to be groping for a rhetorical tool that he can call his own. When he attempts to portray intensity, he appears like a professor. Gary Johnson acts as if he were extremely frustrated…perhaps justifiably so because his positions get very little media notice and minimal face time at the debates. Dr. Ron Paul has the weakest rhetorical style of the nine candidates, but he wastes no words and lacks the slick methods one would expect from someone who’s been in the political arena for more than a quarter century.
Now that I have given you my interpretation of the speaking styles of the various GOP presidential candidates, I urge you to look and listen beyond the words. Parse the sentences and the statements. Are they real, solid and substantive, or are they elegant sounding fluff? Do NOT be fooled by well-coached meaningless rhetoric. We already have one of those in the White House, and we’re trying to get rid of him. It appears that the primary season will be sooner and shorter than it has been historically. That suggests that more people may be swayed by someone who is a “good speaker.” Sound principles, honesty, consistency and integrity are far superior criteria for choosing someone who could be our next president. Go past the words…..to the heart. It is your responsibility.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment