Give em hell harry speech

Political Science 1 hr-thin.gif

Understanding Political Speech

Lesson goals: To understand speech made by candidates and elected officials.

Political Science textbooks perform commendably in providing a wealth of information about campaigns and candidates. But, except for some paragraphs devoted to presidential campaign debates, most texts do not include any guidance to understanding speeches made by politicians. Yet, the American public is inundated with political rhetoric uttered by candidates and elected officials on a daily basis. This lesson will provide a primer to understanding and interpreting political speech.

1. “Give ‘em hell, Harry”

Our 33rd president, Harry S. Truman, was admired as a man of his word and could be counted on to tell an audience what was on his mind. He was frequently frank and blunt in his outspoken comments. The author Merle Miller penned a very popular best-seller about President Truman entitled Plain Speaking, and this title is a very apt summary of Truman’s reputation as a straightforward orator. Truman’s words were never fancy or vague and he could be counted on to tell you what he was up to in a very direct manner. Upon entering a hall to make a speech, Truman would often be encouraged by some attendees to “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” Much of the public was entertained by his clear, unequivocal commentary and appreciated such a plain-talking president.

2. Implications

One could certainly wonder what is implied by the popularity of such a plain-speaking politician. Some might surmise that the American public wants politicians who are clear and committed in speech and deed. That the simple truth is the public seeks clarity of purpose, word, and vision: we all want to be inspired, educated, and persuaded by unmistakable truths which are well-articulated. Many observers would claim that this is not complicated; it is simple and obvious… Americans want leaders who are not afraid to “tell it like it is.”

The great 19th century American poet Walt Whitman perhaps shared the same perspective regarding the powers of plain speech:

“O the orator’s joys!

To inflate the chest, to roll the thunder of the voice out from the ribs and throat,

To make the people rage, weep, hate, desire, with

yourself,

To lead America – to quell America with a great

tongue.”

Whitman perhaps expressed our desire for persuasive political speech. And, today, some might say we ask no less: we want leaders who plainly tell it like it is and motivate us to accomplish great things.

In fact, when political speech is analyzed it is often evaluated from the context of “great speeches.” Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you…” inaugural, and Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” exhortation are just a few of the much admired, inspirational examples of rightfully labeled great speeches.

The reality, surprisingly, is that such plain, persuasive speech is rarely sought by an audience and only infrequently corresponds with the speakers’ needs. Most commonly, a “great speech” is one that appropriately and articulately corresponds to the needs of audience and the person delivering the address.

3. Reality

The reality of political speech is founded on two sets of needs: the audience’s and the speaker’s.

A. Audience needs. These are the public’s needs, yours and mine. We require not necessarily an inspirational orator but instead a speaker that will fulfill the role of either the “spellbinder, the sermonizer, or speechifier.”

1. Spellbinder

Many audiences want to be entertained by a speechmaker, preferably a celebrity or someone in the public eye… and political dignitaries are much in demand to fulfill this spellbinder role. This audience wants to have a good time, not to be challenged but instead amused, to be diverted rather than directed.

Peggy Noonan, the top speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, stated “a speech is poetry: cadence, rhythm, imagery, sweep! A speech reminds us that words, like children, have the power to dance the dullest beanbag of a heart.” Poetry, rhythm, and dance are entertainment all and speeches containing such diversions are sometimes exactly what are sought by an audience.

Audiences desiring a spellbinder would find their needs unmet if confronted with a speaker seeking to inspire them to take immediate action, to actively pursue some public interest, or advocate a cause. The audience seeking a spellbinder wants to be diverted and amused, not directed, even if it is just for this temporary occasion.

2. Sermonizer

In other instances, the public may have a need for what may be labeled as a sermonizer. In a sense, this audience is seeking the qualities that are attributed to a good preacher. The audience wishes confirmation and reassurance (although, for this discussion, not in a religious context). The attendees have no need to be persuaded because they are already joined together in a common cause. Similar to a religious leader, political sermonizers draw their crowds exclusively or primarily from those already convinced, not those seeking conversion. The political sermonizer satisfies the human need to rally with like-minded associates.

This desire for a sermonizer is not unusual. For example, nearing the final weeks of a long presidential campaign, local party leaders may organize a big rally for volunteers and paid staff. This is intended to re-energize campaign supporters when most needed to get out the vote, to work hard to the end. An appropriate speaker could be the candidate or other party bigwig, someone who shares the same values and goals as the audience. The gathering is not intended to persuade or convince those on the other side to support the office-seeker. (Although an unintended benefit could be that undecided voters may be attracted by the enthusiasm and camaraderie of participants.) The event is organized to sustain already-convinced followers, to confirm the election efforts undertaken, and provide tired workers with reassurance that they are not alone but instead part of a unified team.

3. Speechifier

The rituals of American life call for speech, for ceremonial commentary to mark passage and lend dignity. Ceremonial speech is very common and often celebratory. For example, graduations and weddings always include a speech or two to commemorate these milestones in people's’ lives. Construction project ribbon-cuttings also require a speech to mark the occasion as does just about any retail store opening. And, of course, funerals are lent dignity by formal eulogies.

John Kenneth Galbraith (U.S. economist) said that “oratory…must eschew anything that smacks of partisan politics, political preference, sex, religion, or unduly firm opinion. Nonetheless, there must be a speech: speeches in our culture are the vacuum that fills a vacuum.” This perspective on speech and our society is rather dismal but also perhaps reflects the nature of ceremonial commentary, which is designed to be inoffensive. The audience desires commemoration not controversy delivered by what may be aptly coined a speechifier.

President Richard Nixon added to this insight by observing: “The mark of a true politician is that he is never at loss for words because he is always half-expecting to be asked to make a speech.” In other words, a public figure is often called upon to make one-size-fits-all, plain-wrap comments that are probably appropriate with minor modification for any occasion.

As the analysis above clarifies, the public needs are not always for straight, challenging talk and “Give ‘em hell, Harry” discourse. Instead, audiences seek speeches of entertainment by political spellbinders, reassurance by sermonizers, and ceremony by speechifiers.

B. Politicians’ speech needs may require the “campaigner, lawmaker, or machinator”

1. Campaigner.

When office-seekers are engaged in campaigning they need to raise money, workers, and voters… in that order. This is accomplished mostly by mixing air with ink: “airtime on television and radio combined with newspaper “ink” coverage. Internet coverage is becoming similarly important to a campaign. Exposure via these media channels creates awareness of a candidacy and greatly aids in attracting money, workers, and voters.

When campaigning, speeches must recognize the exigencies of “air and ink.” Speeches must be sound bites to accommodate newscast time restraints and to permit the politicians to craft their messages into headlines that will be used by newspapers and the internet. As explained in your AMGOV text, page 265, viewers tuned into mainstream news programs hear only sound bites, which are small edited snippets of a candidate’s comments that often last no longer than a few seconds. Reporters and editors typically show a candidate speaking for less than 10 seconds. This makes it difficult for a candidate to effectively communicate a message unless speech is modified to correspond to sound bite reporting. Speeches must be customized to include brief, clever quotes and staged with appealing backdrops so they will be covered on the television news and in newspapers. Well-crafted sound bite speech is very limited in content and should be extremely repetitive so the same brief message is all that is available to report. This can be a challenging task, as reporters may ask questions on a variety of topics that are not relevant to the candidate’s message for the day. Many candidates are eager to please reporters and are naturally inclined to answer questions, but this can muddle the office seeker’s message. It is the task of the candidate and campaign press staff to discipline themselves to respond to any question with a variation of the same sound bites in order to stay on message.

2. Lawmaker.

Once in office, the successful candidate may find that speech can be effectively used as a “policy soapbox”, a means of promoting his or her proposed legislation. One method of advancing a specific proposal amidst numerous bills introduced by fellow lawmakers is to seek public support via the media. Speeches used as policy soapboxes will only be widely effective if covered by television, newspapers and other media, so a lawmaker must utilize sound bite speech.

Sometimes a lawmaker might also use speech to promote legislative cohesion and solidarity. An elected official’s presence at an event in response to a colleague’s request lends stature, support, and credibility to the other politician. Attendance at a hearing or other event is the critical factor but supportive comments are usually expected. However, “the less said, the better” whereas not to eclipse attention on the organizer. Note that absence can be equally consequential, although for the opposite intent: a prominent lawmaker’s failure to follow through on a promised, publicized appearance at a colleague’s event might in itself be an unspoken negative statement. In other words, the silent treatment is sometimes the most eloquent speech.

3. Machinator. This is tactical speech designed to accomplish a specific goal. A few tactics:

“Give ‘til it hurts”: These are speeches presented as rewards for loyalty. An example would be a speech a winning candidate subsequently makes at a supportive politician’s fundraiser. Often delivered on the infamous rubber-chicken circuit, these rewards for loyalty are often so numerous as to be painfully arduous.

“Scent markers”: This is speech designed to stake out an elected official’s domain by making frequent rounds of organizations in his or her district. Failure to appear engaged in the home district may entice potential future opponents to challenge an incumbent. A dog, of course, marks territory via boundary scent markers. Obviously, humans lack similar olfactory senses, so elected officials best mark their territory via regular speaking engagements throughout their districts!

“Star search”: Speech designed to provide celebrity. Notability can assist in promoting the success of candidacy or an elected official’s policy initiatives. Well publicized, provocative speeches can provide a path to this desired visibility. And, if all else fails, the actor’s adage “I don’t care what they say about me, as long as they say it” is instructive for politicians. In other words, carefully crafted notoriety can also keep a person on the public’s radar screen. For example, from time to time various conservative candidates have visited Hollywood and lambasted movie makers for producing films containing sex or violence. At first glance, this criticism and resultant notoriety appears mystifying. In reality, this is sometimes effective for competitive candidates to gain attention and even campaign donations from the industry eager to cover all bases.

“Goin’ a courtin’”: A very old fashioned expression regarding dating behavior but, in this case, describing speech aimed at wooing new admirers and supporters for a candidate or elected official. Among the ways of courting potential allies is by arranging to speak at an organization’s regular meeting to provide a legislative report.

“Turn the screws”: Speech directed at rule-interpreters and enforcers… the bureaucracy whose support lawmakers need to achieve results. Elected officials recognize that laws or regulations they approve but not effectively implemented by governmental agencies are meaningless. One successful tactic for gaining bureaucratic attentiveness is for lawmakers to personally speak at agency or department hearings.

4. Political lexicon

Common with other modes of human communication, political speech changes over time due to both speechmakers’ needs and audience expectations. The lexicon of speech is very much influenced by the current political and social culture. The choice of words utilized by skilled candidates and experienced office-holders is often carefully culled to avoid offending voters and generating political gaffes. Such cautious political rhetoric is sometimes criticized as being bland and “not saying anything.” Speechmakers, audiences, and the media, however, all play roles in determining the political language utilized in speeches. So, if you find yourself thinking that politicians “all sound the same”, remember that the American public is at least partly to blame for vague, empty rhetoric! The following short discussion by Dr. Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, reveals much about the choice of words in political speech-making.

Dr. Steven Pinker: Political Rhetoric, Explained

5. Conclusion

Political speeches address the various needs of the public audience and the politician delivering the oratory. These needs vary from speech to speech.

Persuasive, clear, concise talk… plain talk… will not fulfill all these needs. It is rarely needed and infrequently utilized in political speech. And, usually, if called into service, is prominently announced ahead of time (e.g., “The President will be interrupting normal broadcasts and delivering an important speech this evening…).

So, if preparing a speech, listening to a politician, or analyzing a political commentary, first identify the needs for the speech from two perspectives: the audience’s and the speaker’s. And then put your pen to paper and craft that speech, or analytically listen and perhaps “give ‘em hell” yourself if the speech fails to accomplish the speaker’s and audience’s needs!

Sample exam questions

Note: Sample questions are provided at the end of each lesson to help you prepare for the midterm and final exams. They are for your use and do not have to be answered and submitted to Connor Dawson.

1. When on the campaign trail, a candidate is most likely to design speeches to

a. pressure bureaucrats to implement legislation

b. persuade an audience to support a reform program

c. accommodate television time constraints

d. appeal to the politically inactive to register to vote

2. Ceremonial commentary by an elected official can be characterized as

a. political sermonizing aimed at providing reassurance

b. persuasive speech crafted to change opinions

c. policy soapbox speech

d. remarks designed to lend dignity

3. The rituals of American life call for ____________ speech to mark passage and lend dignity

a. politically controversial

b. sound bite

c. ceremonial commentary

d. Give ‘em hell, Harry Truman type of

4. The audience at most political campaign rallies is comprised of

a. those seeking confirmation with like-minded associates

b. those gathered to mark passage and dignity

c. undecided voters seeking information

d. the media and political opponents

5. At a “ribbon cutting” for a new shopping mall, the town’s mayor gave a partisan speech

urging people to support free enterprise by eliminating the federal minimum wage law.

This was

a. appropriate, because people are politically motivated to be against something

b. politically smart, because a “captive audience” expects polemics from elected officials

c. appreciated since attendees were likely seeking a one-size-fits-all, plain-wrap,

non controversial speech.

d. inappropriate for ceremonial commentary, although it might be appreciated by an

audience seeking a “sermonizer”

6. Former President G.W. Bush traveled to various communities and made speeches before

small, hand-picked audiences to promote his Iraq policies. Which one of the following types

of speeches was likely utilized?

a. “Give ‘til it hurts”

b. “Turn the screws”

c. “Scent marking”

d. “Soundbite”

7. The reality of political speech is founded on

a. the public’s need for persuasive political speech

b. the audience’s needs and the speaker’s needs

c. the desire for straight, clear, challenging talk

d. oratory crafted to inspire and lead

8. Harvard psychologist Dr. Steven Pinker suggests that political rhetoric is

a. partly driven by the candidates’ need for plausible deniability.

b. directed towards substantive discussion due to media attention.

c. guided by the public’s desire for straight, frank commentary.

d. All of the above.

9. As explained by Dr. Steven Pinker, language in political campaigning

a. results from the “horse-race mentality and gaffe-spotting” focus of the media.

b. is partly motivated by the emotional responses anticipated by the word choices.

c. is guided by candidates’ and the public’s need for empty rhetoric.

d. All of the above.