Winter of Reckoning

Speech By: Governor David Paterson
Title: State of the State Address - 2010
Date: January 6, 2010
Location: Assembly Chamber, the Capitol, Albany, New York
Occasion: Opening of the Legislative Session
Length (words): 3306
Text Posted: Scribd

Background:
This year’s State of the State message comes at a time of severe economic turmoil in a state that boasts the world’s eleventh largest economy. Or, at least it did until the economic downturn hit the Wall Street-based financial institutions which are responsible for driving so much of that economy.

They are also responsible for a disproportionate share of the revenues of state government. Their misfortune is the state’s disaster.

It is also a time of great political turmoil. This year, every statewide office is up for election - Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and both U.S. Senate seats. Only two of those six statewide officeholders were elected to the seat they now hold. For good measure, every seat in both houses of the state Legislature will be on the ballot.

Because this election falls in a census year, control of the all-important redistricting process is also at stake. Right now Democrats control everything. But if the Republicans take back the Senate, or even manage a tie, they will have a strong hand in the process of how districts are redrawn. This will play a major factor in every political calculation that is made.

Another consideration, at least for the state Senate, is that the chamber is only narrowly controlled by the party in power - the Democrats. It takes 32 votes to pass anything in the 62 seat Senate, and that’s exactly how many votes the Democrats have.

This precarious margin of control is what led to the coup that brought the Senate to a halt with three weeks left in the session last June. Even one defection on a controversial issue means the Democrats can’t pass their bills, and many suburban and upstate Senators are concerned about facing re-election after voting for such city-oriented legislation as the MTA payroll tax.

To add to the other uncertainties, one Senate Democrat, Senator Monseratte, was convicted of misdemeanor assault last year and faces the possibility of jail time, as well as the possibility of an expulsion resolution from some of his colleagues.

One final consideration the Governor brings to the speech making process is that he is legally blind. In an age when many politicians wouldn’t give their mailing address without a teleprompter, Governor Paterson pretty much memorizes what he has to say. Perhaps he takes inspiration from a poet of a few years back, who also had the ability to speak at length without written notes - a guy named Homer.

All these are calculations the Governor must consider as he ascends the rostrum on this cold, gray, January afternoon.

Analysis:
Governor Paterson began this speech well. He turned his visual disability to his advantage, by changing past practice. Instead of recognizing various dignitaries around the Chamber as previous Governors have done, he announced he wouldn’t do this, and said we are all citizens of equal standing. This neatly took care of two problems -
First, it avoided the problem of spotting those dignitaries in a large Chamber, by someone whose vision isn’t sufficient to that task.
Second, it is a great technique to establish that all important audience identification every speaker wants to establish.

He also established the tenor of the speech with a good rhetorical flourish, by calling this our “Winter of reckoning.” It evokes our nasty weather of late, ambient, political, and financial, and pays homage to Shakespeare at the same time.

He also ended well, with a reference to his disability, and the determination required for him to overcome it despite the doubts of others.

The middle was less successful. His focus on what he calls a “Reform Albany Ethics Act” seems almost a distraction, given the financial crises the state must confront this session. Perhaps it is intentional - a device to divert attention from the hard choices which must be made. But that seems counter-productive, particularly since it seems to declare war on the very Legislators he must work with to enact the other elements of his program.

However, he did introduce a surprise here, and with a nice turn of phrase as well, by announcing that among the targets of reform are the “so-called good government groups who hide their donors behind walls of sanctimony.” Those groups are the ones who usually focus on what they claim are other people’s ethical failings. They can’t be pleased the scrutiny will now be on them.

The Governor will never have the ability to give a long detailed speech, and that may be just as well. There are far more than enough of those already. Being a powerful orator does not always guarantee success as Governor - witness the tribulations at the end of Governor Cuomo’s last term. But in just under half an hour, he demonstrated the ability to speak as a Governor.

In all it was a reasonably effective speech. Now we must see if the ideas it conveyed meet with the same success.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Elements - Rhetoric

What is the difference between rhetoric, and plain old  words? In one sense - it is akin to asking the difference between the cement blocks that support your house, and the foundation. You simply don’t have a foundation without those blocks. Yet, they are not the same thing. Just as the foundation is so much more than the individual blocks of which it is comprised, so, too, rhetoric is far more than the individual words of  which it is composed.

It is a term descended to us from the ancient Greeks, to whom it meant “the art of oratory.” Plato called it “the art of enchanting the soul.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as: “the art of speaking or writing effectively.”

“Effectively” is the key word in that definition. It doesn’t mean using multi-syllabic language in order to sound impressive. Certainly, that approach does not hold the key to enchanting the soul.

Nor does it mean speaking at great length. In fact, brevity and effective rhetoric are naturally compatible, because well-crafted rhetoric, generally requires fewer words than less carefully structured language.

Keep in mind the featured speaker at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery was Edward Everett, former President of Harvard, and a nationally-known orator. He spoke for a little over two hours. The speaker who followed him, a lanky fellow named Lincoln, spoke for little more than two minutes.

Everett himself recognized the effectiveness of Lincoln’s spare approach to his remarks. In a note to the President the next day, Everett wrote, “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.”

Judging by whose address is best remembered today, Everett’s assessment proved prophetic.

So what makes a particular combination of words effective enough to be classified as rhetoric?

In one sense, crafting a speech using effective rhetoric is much like the sculptor Francois-Auguste Rodin’s description of how to carve a statue - “I choose a block of marble and chop off whatever I don’t need.”

Like chopping pieces off a marble block, eliminating extraneous, unnecessary words, is vital to the formation of rhetoric. There are words whose presence detracts from the whole. Articles in particular, words such as “the,” and “that,” are needlessly tedious elements of language.

Tedium is to rhetoric, what extraneous chunks of marble are to a statue.

When a speech I am writing is finished, I return to the work and ruthlessly excise as many articles, and as much other extraneous verbiage as possible, without risking the ability of the audience to comprehend what is said. The maxim of Thomas Jefferson, who was a lousy public speaker, but a more than passable writer, is instructive here: “Never use two words, when one will do.”

There is far more to be said on rhetoric. Entire college courses are devoted to the subject. But it is best to digest this first offering on the subject.

We are approaching the season of important public speeches - the State of the State, and the State of the Union. As you listen to them this year, I hope you will keep in mind the elements of speech writing, and whether they have been effectively used.

From 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

I Hereby Concede

Speech By: Just About Half the Candidates on the Ballot

Title: I Concede

Date: A Few Hours After the Polls Close on Election Day

Location: Campaign Headquarters / Some Hotel Ballroom

Occasion: Lost Election

Length (words): Various

Video Posted: Usually live

Analysis:
I’ve been in this situation. Although, to my great personal relief, not as frequently as I might have been, considering the competitiveness of the elections I’ve worked in. It’s a campaign speech writer’s most feared chore. And, in speech writing terms, often the most necessary.

It takes nothing for the winning candidate, surrounded by a swelling crowd of raucous supporters who share the same joyous elation, to stand up there and say the right things. If there is ever a time when it’s easy to be gracious, this is that time.

For the losing candidate, it’s a very different proposition. Facing a hushed room, except perhaps for a few muffled sobs, while people who last week claimed to be your friends, sneak out the back door so as not to be seen, it’s very easy to give vent to the harsh emotions a loser must endure.

Unscripted, you can wind up with scenes like Richard Nixon’s bitter - “You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.” Or Howard Dean’s incongruous -  “The scream.”

Nothing in the law demands a losing candidate concede. You can silently sneak off to Tahiti that night and never be heard from again. It doesn’t matter, the person who got the most votes will still be sworn in to office at the beginning of the year.

Political candidates almost invariably possess a healthy amount of ego. An election takes place in front of your friends, family, and neighbors. It takes a special kind of ego to put one’s name out there for the public to accept or reject in a highly visible arena. That ego takes a substantial bruising when the public’s choice turns out to have been the latter.

So a concession speech is an opportunity to show a little class under a situation of great emotional distress. It’s the speech writer’s job to make sure that opportunity is not wasted.

Here are the elements of a successful concession -

• Announce you have called the winner to concede, and wish that person luck in office.
• Thank your family. If your campaign has been at all active, it has truly put a burden on them.
• Thank your supporters for all their hard work.
• Mention how you much you appreciate the opportunity to represent your party, and to meet as many voters as you did.
• Say thank you once more, then leave the stage.

Who to watch Tuesday night:
New York’s 23rd Congressional District - Who will concede - Hoffman or Owens?
Editor’s Note: Dede Scozzafava essentially conceded this morning, as I was writing this, and was quite classy in doing so. Not a result to be wished for, but successful nonetheless.
New Jersey Governor - Christie or Corzine?
New York Mayor - No, I am not predicting any suspense in this election, but how will Bill Thomson handle a moment he must have long known was coming?

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

To Be Continued ......

To Whom Will He Speak?

It is rare for a President to address a joint session of Congress - save for the annual State of the Union address, and that one is mandated under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. In fact, the early Presidents often did not address Congress in person even for that occasion.

Thomas Jefferson, a great writer and terrible public speaker, merely sent his annual message up Jenkins Hill - now slightly better known as Capitol Hill, for the leaders of Congress to act on.

This will be President Obama’s sixth prime time address since taking office. Frankly - that’s a lot. More than one pundit has argued that the President is dangerously over-exposed, including Real Clear politics’ Jay Cost, and former Presidential speech writer Matt Latimer.

As he mounts his Bully Pulpit once again tonight, the President really needs to convince only one audience - the one in the room. This is, after all, a legislative battle at heart. It’s an arena a former Senator should be comfortable in.

Were Lyndon Johnson quarterbacking this effort, he would be working it personally, on a vote by vote basis. He would know which members were on the fence over which issue in the bill. He would know how many members were in the yes column, how many more were needed, and how to get there with a comfortable ten to fifteen vote margin - there is no way he would have moved forward having to depend on one decisive vote who could hold him up at the last minute for more earmarks, or even embarrass him by sending the whole thing down to defeat. He would know what federal facilities were in each member’s district, what was in danger of closing, or could be. And, he would know how to offer each one political cover, should they need it.

Lyndon Johnson would not be out flying around the country giving speeches. His speeches would be short five minute diatribes from the Oval Office to an audience of one Senator or Member of Congress at a time, usually beginning with the phrase - “Come, let us reason together.”

Each president must use his strengths as he sees them, however. In President Obama’s case, he and his advisors see his greatest strength as speech-making. They may be right.

So, what audience will the President address tonight? There are many constituencies who need to hear his message.

Liberal Democrats - It appears that the liberal faction of the President’s own party is seeking to control the final form of the legislation according to their own terms. Can the President convince them that if you demand all or nothing, the most likely result is the latter?

Blue Dog Democrats - Will they listen to angry constituents who have turned out in force at Town Hall meetings, or will they listen to the President’s claim that the opponents are wrong about the facts?

Moderate Republicans - Can he appeal to a few of these, not only to make the health care legislation an easier lift, but to make it appear bi-partisan?

House and Senate Leadership - He needs to not only signal the “bottom line” of what he will settle for, but what he will help them move through Congress.

Large Interest Groups - He needs to let them know details of what he is looking for, and who can expect to enjoy his favor or disfavor. They then, will have to calculate whether what the President wants, as compared to what will happen to them, is worth it.

The Public - It wouldn’t hurt for the President to convince a few undecided voters over to his position, and stop the slide in his public approval rating. That will be watched by members of the first four groups as an indicator of how they should go.

In the end, a good speech is like a good piece of legislation - it should be crafted to reach the right audience.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Elements - Structure

It seems so simple. A speech needs structure to hold it together, in the same way a railroad track needs ties and rails and spikes to hold it together.

There are three basic elements to the structure of any speech: an Introduction, the main Body, and the Conclusion. To those, might be legitimately added another, preliminary element -  the Preamble.

That fourth element is optional, however. It can be useful for establishing audience identification with the speaker, and for acknowledging other participants at an event. But it might not always be appropriate, and is certainly not essential.

Let’s consider the three essential elements that make up the framework of our speech:

Introduction - This sets up the premise or the theme that will be examined in the body of the speech. It’s also the part where, if you haven’t employed a preamble, you seek to establish that essential ingredient - shared identity with the audience.

Body - This is the main part of the speech. It’s where the arguments, or the justifications for the main premise of the speech are developed. This is where the factual bases for the premise are provided. Any statistics - and they should be used sparingly, to avoid confusing the audience - are provided here. The arguments in support of the premise are made here.

Conclusion - It’s where the whole thing is summed up. If there is a call to action - here is where it is  issued. If a stirring tribute, it is this point where the emotions of the audience should be most affected.

Let’s take another look at the speech we analyzed recently - Secretary of State Clinton’s address before the Council on Foreign Relations. How does it match the framework we’ve just defined?

The first paragraph, with its rather oblique reference to “the mother ship in New York,” is certainly a preamble. It is a beginning and certainly seeks to share some “inside humor.” Unfortunately, no one laughed.

As for the Introduction, it is less than a clear statement of principles, premise, or even promise:
“And with more states facing common challenges, we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America’s mission in the world today.”
That’s hardly a statement like Winston Churchill’s famous speech at Westminster college:
“The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with this primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future.”
His “Iron Curtain” speech is an appropriate contrast here, because it also has foreign relations as its topic.

The Body of Secretary Clinton's speech suffers from this initial lack of a clear introductory statement. It continues with an equal lack of clarity. While much is said, it is difficult to follow any clear, logical, path of reasoning.

It is a series of successive paragraphs, each offering something, but they don’t go anywhere. They don’t tie things together into a complete, comprehensible whole. These paragraphs use none of the classic rhetorical devices, such as repetition, to help the audience follow what is being said. Nothing stands out.

Again the contrast is with Churchill:
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.”
With that one line, he coined a phrase that still resonates today.

Finally, her Conclusion. The final line is:
“Now all we have to do is deliver. Thank you all very much.”
It does nothing to inspire others on to action, to sum up the information in the speech, or to lay out a course of action the speaker intends to pursue.

In the end, a speech without a clear structure is like riding in a train that’s come off the track. You’ve still got an engine - but you won’t be going anywhere.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom