State of the Union 2011

Speech By: President Obama

Date: January 25, 2011

Location: House of Representatives

Occasion: State of the Union

Analysis:

It may be that he set the bar so high with his speech in Arizona, that any subsequent effort would be a mere shadow in its wake; or, maybe, it may be the nature of the speech itself, which is akin to a homeowners “to-do list” on a busy weekend – except this id for a nation of 300 million people, and for an entire year; and maybe, just maybe, it was the new seating arrangements, which not only blurred the partisan affiliation of the audience, but blunted their reaction to the speech, as well. Whatever the reason – the President’s State of the Union address was less than inspiring.

In fact, it would not be uncharitable to say it fell flat.

A State of the Union speech is assembled by a committee, the different agencies of government, the different interests among the public to whom the President wants to appeal, or to whom he owes a special thank you – and none of them are gathered in the same room to hear what the others have to say. It’s not a condition geared towards achieving excellence.

But last year’s speech was a solid effort.

This year’s speech was slightly shorter (about 300 words) than last year’s. But it seemed longer.

It may be that the new practice of having members of each party sit next to each other, diminished the enthusiasm, or the energy of the audience.

It may be, that sitting interspersed dilutes the effect of support for what the President is saying.

It occurs to me that the suggestion to mix up the seating came from one of the President’s own, now much reduced, party. Perhaps the idea was to distribute the President’s Democratic colleagues throughout the audience, and, in so doing, show more support throughout the House chamber than would otherwise have been exhibited. 

The problem seems to be that rather than distributing the President’s support more widely throughout the audience, it became diluted. If showing greater support was the intent, it was indeed a miscalculation.

As for the rhetoric of the speech itself, he appears to have abandoned the phrase “Let me be clear,” an expression which had become distressingly common in his earlier speeches. However, he still begins sentences with the word “And,” far too often. In this case, it was 49 times in 480 sentences. That’s more than 10 per cent of the time. The President, and his speech writers, can do better than that.

Finally, let’s talk about the catch-phrase of the speech “This is our Sputnik moment.” If you have doubts that this is the phrase the White House wanted to promote – go back and look at all the press coverage, just prior to, and just after the speech. Almost every outlet picked up on that phrase. 

Was that because it’s catchy, and has been on everyone’s lips in the days following the speech? No, it’s because the White House press office pushed it, thinking, or at least hoping, it would capture the public’s imagination.

Just one more miscalculation.

Length (words): 6945

Text Posted: The White House

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Reflection

Speech By: President BarackObama

Date: January 12, 2011

Location: University of Arizona

Occasion: Service for those shot in Tucson

Analysis:

No one wishes to be the bearer of bad news. In ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh generally had the messenger who brought unpleasant tidings executed. While it wasn’t exactly news at this point, President Obama’s speech in response to the criminal attacks in Tucson last weekend was a sad duty.

 It was also a chance to stand as leader of a nation shocked, and torn and seeking answers. He made the most of it. He begins by establishing that all important shared identification: “I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today,”

“I am one of you,” the President is assuring us, “We share this pain together.”

He speaks on behalf of the entire nation in wishing those who have suffered, and lost much, well. And he speaks openly, and unashamedly, of faith. This is not feigned or incongruous – for many of those who were victims of the attack were people of faith. Judge Roll, the President notes, was on his way back from Mass, which he attended every day. It may be of some comfort to his family, and those who share his obviously deep faith, that this was one of his final acts.

In turn, he speaks of each of the six deceased victims – telling a personal tale about each one. This is a well-researched speech.

Again he speaks for all of us: “Our hearts are broken by their sudden passing. Our hearts are broken – and yet, our hearts also have reason for fullness.”

Next he speaks of the living, and in particular, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords: “I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak.” Then he departs from his prepared text to announce something that just occurred during his visit to her hospital room. “She just opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting,” he reveals, and the crowd goes wild with applause. He is no longer speaking for all of us – but to all of us.

His speech has become a universal appeal to the country. Who among us does not want to see Gabrielle Giffords recover, or is not deeply pained at the loss of nine year-old Christina Taylor Green? He is erecting a big tent – seeking inclusiveness. This is a large country he leads, and he wants us all to be involved in a respectful manner: “at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

At a time when so many have used this horrific crime as an excuse to promote their own political agendas, even, in the most crass manner possible, do political fundraising, the closest the President comes to promoting a political agenda is this: “We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.” Is this a reference, perhaps, to stricter gun control? It gets no more specific than that. But the crowd erupted in sustained applause, so they certainly thought they knew what he meant.

He immediately returns to his role as leader of a great, if wounded, nation: “But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.”

Then, he calls on us to seek a higher purpose from this attack: “That process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions – that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.”

Near the end, he is urging us on to higher calling: “I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

And: “If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost.”

He has risen above the sniping, and digging, and vicious calumny of standard political debate, and ascended to a new plane. Now he is asking his nation to join him at that high station.

Truly this is a superior speech at a time such is sorely needed. It would not be venturing too far afield to declare it the best of his Presidency.

Length (words): 2510

Text Posted: New York Times

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

In The Shadows

Speech By:  President Barack Obama
Title: Wall Street Reform
Date: April 22, 2010
Location: Cooper Union
Text Posted: State of Politics Blog

Analysis:
Put simply - this was not one of the President’s more effective, or dynamic speeches. Given the pre-speech hype by the White House, and its importance to his legislative agenda - especially since the passage of health care failed to deliver a bounce in public opinion polls - one would have expected otherwise.

As the White House press pool report noted: “Apart from loud cheers and applause when the president walked in, the speech was heard in mostly silence apart from the flutter of camera shutters." This is more notable because a number of local politicians, most of them members of the President’s own party, were in the audience.

There really was not much memorable about this speech. No great catch phrases stand out. It was delivered without great passion, and received in like manner. It was as if the President had left his great oratorical skills, and truly, such they are, back in the Oval office.

In some sense, this speech was delivered amid long shadows. As he notes in the opening paragraph, Cooper Union is basically in the shadows of Wall Street. But other shadows are cast on the Great Hall at Cooper Union. Six future Presidents, and three incumbent Presidents have spoken from that stage. President Obama is the only one who falls into both categories. From that stage, an aspiring politician from Illinois gave the speech that would make him President - exactly a century and a half ago. Then, it was a lanky fellow who wore a stove-pipe hat.

Obama even refers to shadows as part of his speech: “these markets operated in the shadows of our economy,” and maintains his proposed reforms “would bring complex financial dealings out of the shadows;”.

Perhaps these shadows obscured the perspective of his speech writers. But this was not an outstanding effort to justify greater government involvement in an essential facet of the American economy.

Whether you support these reforms or oppose them; welcome greater government control over the finance industry, or abhor the very prospect; it is disappointing the President did not make a more forceful case for this key element in his legislative agenda.

One sentence in the next-to-last paragraph did garner my attention. “In the end, our system only works – our markets are only free – when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system.” Yes it is a summation, but to my mind it should have been punched up, and inserted as the second paragraph. It could have been the pillar around which the rest of the speech was built. Instead, it meanders until it reaches this summing up paragraph, By that time, the potential power of the speech was lost.

He does spend three of his 30 paragraphs - ten percent - slamming lobbyists. That will be the topic of a separate Bully Pulpit post. Believe me.

Length (words): 2849

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Tonight, it matters

He has given, by the count I arrived at based on information posted on the White House Web site, 450 speeches since taking the oath of office. This does not include statements, press conferences, interviews or toasts.

My guess is, his remarks at the annual Easter egg roll probably weren’t extensive, considering the attention span of the intended audience. But many of those speeches were in depth policy talks.

It is said by any number of observers that President Obama’s first instinct when confronted by a problem is to give a speech. This is not intended as a compliment by said observers. This night however, before an audience crammed into the chamber of the House of Representatives, is different.

Tonight is President Obama’s first State of the Union speech, an occasion called for in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: “He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

This speech is seen by many as a moment in which the President will attempt to turn around the slide in political fortunes of his party, his policy agenda in Congress, and ultimately his administration. Some are even starting to talk about President Obama as a one-term President. These people, of course, know nothing about politics. Three years is about a dozen lifetimes away in politics. There will be many successes to buoy the President between now and the next Presidential election, and many failures to deflate his administration. Of more immediate concern are the Congressional elections which are now just over nine months away, and which may prove a disaster for his party unless there is some significant change in public perception. This speech will try to change that perception.

Political reporter Chris Cillizza of The Fix offers a handy “State of the union viewer’s guide.”

Along the same lines the Capitol newspaper The Hill gives this preview of the speech: “Obama changes message to revive agenda, help Dems in 2010 races.”

We of course, will be watching tonight from the vantage point of -

The Bully Pulpit - Tom

President Obama on Afghanistan

Speech By: President Barack Obama

Title: Policy Address on Afghanistan
Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Eisenhower Hall, United States Military Academy - West Point, New York
Occasion:  Policy Statement
Length (words): 4,583
Transcript Posted: New York Times

Background:
Some observers opine that the President has been over-exposed since taking office. They argue he gives speeches rather than making policy and administering government, almost as if he were still on the campaign trail.

No reasonable person would say that on this occasion. One of the most difficult decisions a President can make is that of sending troops into harm’s way.

Symbolism adds an essential element to a good speech, and location is a time-tested way to enhance symbolism. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech would have been great in any locale. But with the Lincoln Memorial as backdrop, the carved stone visage of the Great Emancipator gazing down on the throng, it was an effective way to augment the powerful words of the speech.

In choosing the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for this policy address, the President has chosen a location heavy in symbolism. He addressed, face to face, an auditorium filled with the very people he will be ordering into harm’s way.

It’s a location which added a dramatic air to the President’s remarks - a drama which might have otherwise been lacking, considering the White House had already let it be known over the weekend that General McChrystal’s request for more troops would be agreed to by the President.

Analysis:
This speech might have been written by Ernest Hemingway. It consists mostly of short declarative sentences. That style differs markedly from most of the President’s other speeches.

Unlike many of his other speeches, this one relies on the use of the collective “we” - which creates that shared identification with the audience - rather than “I.” He uses the words, “we, we’ve or we’ll” a hundred times, roughly three times as often as he says “I or I’ll.”  It’s a subtle and welcome change. Particularly on this occasion. When you are addressing a room full of soldiers - some of whom will almost certainly not return because of your decision, audience identification is vital.

Another tendency of the President, which has been discussed here before, is to use the word “And” to begin a sentence. As previously noted, nothing in English grammar prohibits this, but the technique can be over-used. Tonight, it happened 28 times in a speech of only 232 sentences. That works out to 12 per cent of the time. That’s a rate I suspect Hemingway might have taken exception to.

As is so often the case, the President is addressing many audiences in this speech: The 43 nations who are allied in the struggle, the enemies we face, the two countries where the fighting is taking place, the rest of the world, the American people, the left-wing members of his own party in particular who object to the war, even the financial markets who will provide the capital to fund the war. Oh, yes, and that room full of cadets and their officers who will do the fighting.

On balance it is an effective speech.

It starts out establishing the reasons for the war in Afghanistan, noting that our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. He recites a history of the war, touches on the evil presented by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and announces a timetable for ending the conflict. He also announces that 30,000 additional American troops, and a total of 40,00 troops in total, will be assigned to the conflict.

He engages in some effective rhetorical flourishes - even touching on some of the elements of American exceptionalism: “But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.” It’s a traditional theme, largely avoided - in some cases even rejected - by the President, in previous speeches.

In the next to last paragraph he hearkens back to the 9/11 attacks which formed the basis for the beginning of his speech: “It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.” It’s an effective way to bring the speech full circle.

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

Dangers of the Bully Pulpit

Then again - maybe not!

Obama and the Speech
What is the point and purpose of the President's orations?

A great analysis by the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger of President Obama's rhetorical skills and predilections. He begins by asking: “Can Barack Obama talk his way onto Mount Rushmore?”

Then he points out: “More than any U.S. president, The Speech is the primary vehicle of Barack Obama's politics.”

While Henninger concludes by saying "he is trying to shape a presidency from the force of his own political personality carved out of a mountain of random eloquence. It might work, too." I think he actually understands why that won't work.

This illustrates one of the dangers inherent in a President's use of the Bully Pulpit - its over use. If people get to the point where they say - "Oh, him again. He's always talking but not accomplishing anything," it's a problem.

To preserve its power to persuade, the Bully Pulpit must be used judiciously.


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom