Give Me Liberty

Title: Give Me Liberty
Speech By: Patrick Henry
Date: March 23, 1775
Location: St. John’s Church - Richmond, Virginia
Occasion: Resolution to arm the militia

Analysis:
One of the problems with this, like Socrates’ Apology, is that they were actually recorded long after the speaker’s demise. Plato is the actual author of Apology. There was no court reporter to take it all down verbatim. One can easily imagine Plato and a group of fellow philosophers musing after all was over, goblets of wine in hand, “Boy, that Socrates sure gave one hell of a last speech. We ought to write that down. Do you remember what he said exactly?”

This, Henry’s most famous speech, was reconstructed from listeners’ memories 15 years after his death - and 40 years after he gave it!

That could well explain such seemingly prescient phrases as: “The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!” With the battle of Lexington and Concord still a month away, it’s either a remarkably accurate prediction, or, perhaps, a case of convenient memory.

Still, there is no doubt Henry was one of the most powerful speakers of his time. There is also little doubt this speech was memorable enough to make a lasting impression on those who heard it.

It is a speech rich in classical allusions - “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Can you see Henry as the successor to Diogenes? This time, not seeking an honest man, but the lessons of experience, and meeting with far greater success.

It is equally rich in Biblical allusions - “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.” In so doing, he was addressing his audience in terms with which they were intimately familiar. In other words, he was establishing that vital element by which to capture the attention of his listeners, audience identification.

He also resorts to one of the other elements that make an effective speech - repetition of one word to help his audience follow the points he wants to make. In this case “We” is the operative word. “Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned -- we have remonstrated -- we have supplicated -- we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.”

Later, he resorts to the same device using a different word - “Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power.”

Finally, he concludes with a stirring call to action - “Forbid it, Almighty God! -- I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

It is a rallying cry virtually every American schoolchild can recite. That stirring conclusion alone makes this speech worthy of inclusion in the Top Ten speeches of all time.

Text Posted: National Center for Public Policy Research
Words: 1018

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Equal Time

Title: Response to the State of the State
Speech By: Senator Dean Skelos
Background:
It is traditional for the other party to respond to a major speech, such as the State of the State, or State of the Union. We examined the former, so this is an examination of the response by Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos. It is our version of equal time.
Full Disclosure - In examining New York politicians, we are talking about people I know personally. Governor Paterson and I have discussed seeing eye dog legislation, and Senator Skelos addresses me on a first-name basis. But none who ascends The Bully Pulpit is absolved of scrutiny from our little Congregation.
Date: January 6, 2010
Location: Albany, New York
Length (words): 850
Video Posted: YouTube
Text Posted: New York State Senator Dean G. Skelos

Analysis:
This speech starts out with the phrase “I’m Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos.” That’s a bad start. “I” is always a bad way to start a speech. It does not establish that all-important shared identification with the audience that gets people to listen. It generally does the opposite.

Granted, Governor Paterson spoke live before a crowded Assembly chamber, with an introduction by the Lieutenant Governor, while Senator Skelos spoke on television. But there are ways to handle this problem. Why not have an announcer introduce the Senator, or even superimpose on-screen titles? Actually, why not both? To compound the problem, the original tape is posted on the Web - unedited. It would take little effort to trim the first four seconds of video, or even just the sound, and insert a voice-over intro and titles. That way, later viewers would see a better product.

There are other flaws with this talk, though none is extremely damaging, and it’s not a bad speech, on balance. But it should have been better. The thing is - when you are competing with a Governor, who gets a greater share of public attention, you must maximize your opportunities.

This is an era when identification with political parties is at an all-time low. The largest portion of the electorate is not Democrat, nor Republican, it is unaffiliated voters - “independents.” So a speech that appeals heavily to partisan identification is likely to miss a large portion of the intended audience.

Yes, you want to blame the other side for their mistakes, and take credit for what you did right, that’s how democracy works. But he uses the phrase “Republican” or “Senate Republicans” half a dozen times. That’s more than once a minute, in this five minute speech. After once or twice the phrase “my colleagues and I,” might be preferable. If you are politically aware enough to listen to these speeches, you pretty much know what the sides are.

In terms of assigning blame to the other party, I actually think he lost a good opportunity. Early in the speech, he talks about how the budget adopted by the Democrats last year made life tougher for New York families, reciting a litany of problems.
“You lost your STAR rebate checks that helped you pay your property taxes.”
“Your energy taxes were raised, increasing your utility bills.”
“They increased the cost of health insurance for your family.”
“And, they made it more expensive for you to register your car, renew your driver’s license and pay for every day family needs.”
This was truly a lost opportunity to make an “Us versus them” comparison. For example, when you think about it, if “You lost your STAR rebate check,” you should start looking for it in the last place you saw it. That’s not what happened. It was taken away in a budget maneuver.

How about phrasing it this way instead:
“They took away our STAR rebate checks, which helped pay our property taxes.”
“They  raised energy taxes, increasing our utility bills.”
“They increased the cost of our health insurance.”
“And, they made it more expensive to register our cars, renew our driver’s licenses and pay for every day family needs.”

It makes the other party “they,” and, by substituting "our" for "your," makes it clear on whose side the speaker stands.

Equal time isn’t really equal - except perhaps at The Bully Pulpit - you have to make the most of your opportunities. This could have been better.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

General McChrystal on Afghanistan

Title: General McChrystal’s Speech on Afghanistan
Background: On Tuesday, President Obama will announce his decision on whether to accede to General Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation that an additional 40,000 troops be assigned to Afghanistan.
While General McChrystal made his request to the President through standard military channels, it was this speech that brought the issue to public attention.
Speech By: General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander, International Security Assistance Forces, NATO
Date: October 1, 2009
Location: Arundel House - London, United Kingdom
Occasion: Special Address - International Institute for Strategic Studies
Length (words): 3826
Video Posted: International Institute for Strategic Studies 
Text Posted: Real Clear Politics

Analysis:
One of the finest traditions of this nation’s military is that active-duty service members do not get involved in political debate. Some observers claimed this speech was a violation of that principle.

This speech may indeed have put political pressure on the President, but it is not overtly political. It details the situation in Afghanistan as the General has found it, makes certain recommendations about how to improve the situation, and even explains why success is important. He is, after all the Commanding General in a theater of military operations against hostile forces. He should be able to make such explanations.

But, at no time does McChrystal demand more troops or other resources, or take issue with policy as set by the White House.

It is laid out with military precision, but that doesn’t mean the speech lacks the elements of a good speech - albeit one being delivered to a public policy organization.

Starting with a preamble, he immediately establishes a shared identification with the audience. He points out his deputy commander is a British Lieutenant General, then goes on to recognize “the enormous sacrifice that families here in the UK have made.” He is, after all, speaking in London.


He then tells his audience, “I will start by posing seven questions before attempting to answer them.” This is an effective way to structure a speech so the audience can follow it - tell the audience what to expect.

To illustrate the complexities of the society in which his troops must operate, he describe the complications which can arise from digging a well for the inhabitants of a village - something he correctly surmises the audience would assume to be an act of generosity for the village in question. This works on two levels - it’s a good way to review a complex situation, plus it gives the audience a clear mental image of what is being described.

It is a fairly long speech, as befits both the complexity and the seriousness of the topic. To help grab the attention of his audience, he employs such classic devices to hold audience attention as challenging generally accepted truths about the topic.

Ultimately, the true measure of success for a speech like this is how the President reacts to it. While General McChrystal’s speech did not publicly challenge the President, he is on the spot politically. Then again, that’s a President’s job. We’ll know if the speech was successful Tuesday night.

From the Bully Pulpit - Tom

Elements - Audience Identification

Ever hear a politician speak to a room full of people - and spend the whole time expounding on the ninth letter of the alphabet? You know - “I did this, I did that, I made this happen?”

In my line of work, it’s an occupational hazard.

The danger with expounding on the ninth letter of the alphabet this way, is that the interest of the audience quickly evaporates. An audience wants to have some kind of shared connection with the speaker they are listening to. A successful speaker needs to establish “audience identification.” In other words, the speaker has to find a way to get the audience to identify with the speaker, or at the very least, with what is being said.

Repeatedly saying “I,” quickly erodes that identification. That repeated word soon becomes the focus of audience attention.

At the same time, the audience also wants to hear what the politician is doing for them, or, depending on your point of view, doing to them. They expect to hear what’s going on. It’s the fundamental basis of democracy. Voters make up their mind on who they will support in the next election, based on what they know about what has happened in the recent past.

This is a serious conundrum for our political speaker. Credit has to be taken for what is going right. Yet, taking too much of the credit, or worse, taking it in the wrong manner, is a sure-fire formula for losing audience attention and, thus, not getting the credit you deserve anyway.

There is a way around this for the wise political speaker. Instead of saying - “I got such and such a program enacted,” look for an opportunity to involve the audience.

How about - “Mrs. Mary Jones wrote a letter to my office.” Right away, the audience is involved, it’s a story, and it involves an average citizen - someone just like them. Perhaps people in the audience actually know Mary Jones. Perhaps she’s even there that night - in which case, the wise politician has her stand to be recognized, then goes on. “She asked why there wasn’t a program to do such and such. It was a good question, and no one we contacted in government had a good answer. Today, we have that program!”

Without ever saying the words “I or me,” and using “my” only once, our wise politician has made the audience understand that because Mary Jones came to his office with her problem, the program to solve that problem is now up and running.

Working together is a great way to maintain audience identification. A real-life example of it, is even better.

It’s probably not wise, or even possible in most cases, for a speaker to totally avoid using the first person. But over-use is a recipe for disaster.


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom