I have long been in a minority of people who has been unimpressed with President Obama’s abilities as a speaker. As a candidate, I thought his speeches sounded eloquent, but were generally content-free. As president, the opposite seems to have happened. His policy speeches are often deadly dull, with hardly any memorable phrase or other forensic feature, such as contrapuntal phrasing or alliteration, to help make them memorable.
This is not a partisan point. I have always thought Bill Clinton an underrated speaker. His great strength is his ability to distill a complex point to its essence so that the everyday people can see their stake in it. That allowed him to reach out to people who were not true believers and persuade them over to his side. And that, of course, is the essence of presidential speechmaking. In his first term, President George W. Bush was a very effective speaker. In his second term, however, he devalued the coin by saying things that simply weren’t to be taken seriously, e.g., Harriet Myers was qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, things were getting better in Iraq, etc. Eventually, people just tuned him out.
Obama seems to be edging dangerously close to the same territory after only a year. It’s not hard to see why. His oft-repeated promise that “If you like your health care plan and you like your doctor, you can keep them,” has fallen by the wayside. So has the alleged moral imperative of covering the uninsured, as both the House and Senate plans would leave millions without insurance. And let’s not even mention closing Guantanamo. All of this and more besides has combined to debase the value of Obama’s words. (His “gift,” as he modestly described it to Harry Reid.)
And now, ever so gently, the Beltway chattering class is allowing itself to ask a previously unutterable question: “Is Obama REALLY that good a speaker?”
The Washington Post was first into the field on Jan. 17, with a column finally taking note of something the rest of us had identified nearly a year earlier: Obama’s favorite phrase, “Let me be clear.” The Washington Post even allowed that said phrase often preceded points that were anything but clear. Perhaps in coming months we can look forward to articles calling attention to such phrases as “I have enough on my plate” (invariably delivered before announcing a new nationalization or takeover); “This is a false choice” (issued when he wants to evade the essence of the subject under discussion); “This is not about me” (when it invariably is); and so on.
OK, every president overuses certain words and phrases. What ought to be of more concern to the Obama speechwriting team is an AP article headlined “Capital Culture: Critics Assess Obama’s Speeches.”
The killer quote is right near the top, coming from no less than the dean of presidential speechwriting (and Obama supporter) Ted Sorensen.
‘He is still a very eloquent, articulate speaker,’ Sorensen says. ‘He is clearly well informed on all matters of public policy, sometimes, frankly, a little too well informed. And as a result, some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.’
Ouch. The rest of the article goes on to point out that Obama’s speeches are neither very memorable nor, on the basis of the record, very persuasive.
If you are President Obama (or his speechwriters), this is not a discussion you want to see happening. If your man has a “gift,” the last thing you want to hear is that the gift is no longer giving. Can the slide be reversed? Yes. A little humble pie in this week’s State of the Union could go a long way. Does he have it in him? Maybe, but on the basis of what we have seen so far, I’m not betting on it.
18 responses so far
1 Kevin B // Jan 25, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I think Obama would do well to ignore your “advice.” I doubt it’s offered with his interests at heart.
2 kevin47 // Jan 25, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I’ve been saying this since the Democratic primary. Once, during a discussion comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan, I asked for any Obama example that could hold a candle to the penultimate paragraph in the “Cross of Gold” speech.
The response: “Yes We Can”.
Not making this up. I also disagree with the meme (originating after Obama’s first healthcare press conference, the one that led to the beer summit) that Obama is just too darned knowledgeable to express his views on issues coherently.
What Obama does have is a remarkably assured cadence. That’s not nothing. Confidence is a big part of leadership, and his rhetorical power contrasted his predecessor, who always seemed a bit mumbly. If you look at a transcript of Obama’s speeches and interviews, you see the same vocal tics, stalling tactics, and sentences that lack internal logic. The Rick Warren interview is a stark example of this.
Bill Clinton was a brilliant speaker. Actually, Hillary is pretty good, too, when she doesn’t force it and do that manic thing with her eyes.
3 AllenGG // Jan 25, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Very few politicians are great public speakers, and President Obama is no exception, he is confident, a plus, he speaks clearly, but his content is boring.
I disagree with David, ex President Clinton is not a good speaker but is casually charming and perhaps “folksy” would be descriptive.
Obama has an appeal that many intellectuals possess, namely innocence with honesty. that effect makes him very acceptable, added to the the presence of his wife who is possibly a better public speaker. We are reminded, constantly that both Obamas were successful legal practitioners.
4 CentristNYer // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The fact is that without his rhetorical skills, he’d still be a first term senator from Illinois. It was the content of his powerful speech about Red/Blue America that first brought him to the nation’s attention and cemented his image as a politician who saw beyond the fake divide that those on the hard left and hard right seek to impose.
It was the first time any recent politician had made it the centerpiece of his campaign and it clearly resonated with a disaffected electorate.
Those same skills also saved his campaign when Reverend Wright was trumped up as an issue. The speech on race was honest, candid and effective, and it ultimately got Wright out of the headlines and allowed average people to understand that Obama was anything but a racist (despite the desperate efforts of FauxNews to paint him otherwise).
And it’s certainly worth noting that when he addressed the nation on health care a few months ago, the downward trend line in support of reform reversed sharply. (Unfortunately, he didn’t follow it up and an opportunity was lost, but he may yet insert himself back into the reform debate.)
If the measure is being able to be persuasive, then Obama certainly qualifies.
5 kevin47 // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“And it’s certainly worth noting that when he addressed the nation on health care a few months ago, the downward trend line in support of reform reversed sharply.”
Same thing happened with Carter’s malaise speech. Almost any political speech has an immediate intended impact. How it resonates days and weeks later determines whether it is a net positive.
“We are reminded, constantly that both Obamas were successful legal practitioners.”
I am not part of the ‘we’. Every time he speaks, I am reminded that Obama’s ascent to political stardom is largely artificial. I am also reminded that he has awful communications people at his behest, which is a curious affliction for a rhetorical master. His communications staff didn’t hire itself.
6 mymy // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I haven’t seen a speech Obama has given that compares well to Ws’ National Cathedral speech.There was no me in it and I can’t imagine the strenght it took to give it
7 BoolaBoola // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Yeah, Obama often speaks over the head of the typical american voter. He should dumb-down. Maybe if he grunted from time to time, and scratched his ribs the wrong way up, as orangoutans do, it would help appeal to the typical american voter a bit more.
8 kevin47 // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:38 pm
“Maybe if he grunted from time to time, and scratched his ribs the wrong way up, as orangoutans do, it would help appeal to the typical american voter a bit more.”
You spelled “orangutans” wrong, Einstein.
9 mymy // Jan 25, 2010 at 7:03 pm
How can Obama be a great speaker if he “speaks over the head”of the voter.I always assumed a very important part of being a good speaker is being understood
10 sinz54 // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm
CentristNYer:
That “cement” gave way a long time ago.
Nobody thinks Obama is still trying to unify the country anymore.
And it was NEVER a “fake” divide.
Whenever Obama says “That’s a false choice,” watch out. It’s Obama attempting to have it both ways again.
Some things are not false choices nor fake divides. You can either raise taxes (as liberals prefer) or cut taxes (as conservatives prefer). You can either impose regulations (as liberals prefer) or slash regulations (as conservatives prefer).
Obama’s increasingly transparent attempts to paper over those differences are getting tiresome. It’s about time he came down on one side or the other.
11 Kanzeon // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I think Obama can be an effective and inspiring speaker. The problem is his lack of leadership.
It’s pretty difficult to make an inspiring speech if you refuse to take a stand or lead. If he gave a campaign style rousing speech now, he risks boxing himself into a position where he might need to take a stand, be tough, or take a political risk.
12 BoolaBoola // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Kanzeon, yes, it’s tough when you actually try to accomplish something, to govern, unlike the Right Man and the tax-cut-junkies.
13 anniemargret // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Hilarious reading all the dissing of Obama and his apparent lack of oratorical skills, coming from Republicans after the bumbling “Bushisms” of GWB and the snarling lip-curling sneers of Dick Cheney (who never ever spoke directly to Americans anyway).
14 kevin47 // Jan 26, 2010 at 12:07 am
One thing I like about Obama is his principled refusal to end sentences with a preposition. It delights me to here a president say “through which”.
15 Kanzeon // Jan 26, 2010 at 12:52 am
sinz54:
“You can either raise taxes (as liberals prefer) or cut taxes (as conservatives prefer). You can either impose regulations (as liberals prefer) or slash regulations (as conservatives prefer).”
Or, you can raise taxes on some people, and cut them for others (as Democrats actually propose). And you can impose regulations on some industries at some times, and reduce them at others (as Democrats actually propose – note particularly that Wall Street was deregulated under Clinton, and Carter championed deregulation before Reagan did).
Regardless of the reality of what Democrats ACTUALLY propose, as opposed to what conservatives THINK they propose, isn’t this a silly way to run two political parties? Wouldn’t a sane party raise or lower taxes, or increase or decrease regulations, based on the unique circumstances of the moment?
16 GOProud // Jan 26, 2010 at 9:40 am
I have to disagree, Gusher.
I think Obama is, indeed, a gifted orator and speech delivery boy. I think the notion that a speech has to have “substance” or policy pronouncements in it to be good or great fails to take into account nearly all of Ron Reagan’s speeches… which were hollow, warm fuzzy wraps of dreamy word couplings fresh from a mushy over-the-top patriotic film trailer. It clearly ignores the speeches, for instance, that this blog’s founder helped pen for W… short on real intelligence or information and long on dreamy word wraps. And those were economic speeches!
Speeches and speech writers aren’t especially well regarded among the men and women in the policy wings and political basement who have to do the heavy lifting… and for real, solidly good reasons. Speech writers are for inspiring, for framing, for swelling the crowd’s bosom… to make the listener feel good, to be awed. Not to inform. Not to explain. Not to illuminate. Teddie Sorenson wasn’t an especially great speech writer… he’s just lived a long time… he’s the Democrat’s dean because of seniority, not talent or merit or intellectual prowess.
Obama inspires in his speeches. It’s why other Democrats like Reid and Pelosi fail so miserably at it no matter who writes their speeches. Obama can deliver the worst speech written and make it sound comforting, supportive, encouraging –as long as the teleprompter works. But when off-script, he returns to the professorial, droning, endlessly explaining and cautiously conditional lawyer and Harvard don he’d like to be thought of being. It’s why WH press conferences only have 4-5 questions, it seems, and 40 minute answers… and snores from the crowd.
Which is the true Obama? The one that wants to be loved and admired most; you pick. Is it his speech writers’ fault? No; no one takes them seriously when you begin moving forward on policy… the speech writer is the last person asked a policy question –except around here.
17 sinz54 // Jan 26, 2010 at 10:04 am
Kanzeon:
There are indeed circumstances when a Democrat cuts taxes (JFK), or a Republican intervenes in the economy with bailouts (Bush 43).
But those are unusual circumstances.
The two political parties have differing philosophies that color how they deal with issues. The GOP is more disposed to finding free-market solutions; the Dems believe in activist government to solve problems.
Faced with a budget deficit, the Dems are more likely to raise taxes, the Repubs are more likely to try to cut spending.
That’s in fact the substance of the debate currently on in Congress.
18 Kanzeon // Jan 26, 2010 at 11:25 am
sinz54:
I don’t think that the idea that one party is “more likely” to do something has any utility. It’s false anyway.
Obama just cut taxes by $250 billion in the stimulus bill. Carter proposed tax rebates. Nixon established wage and price controls. Reagan raised taxes. Clinton’s tax policy raised marginal rates by a few points – to levels that were extremely low by historical standards. Clinton supported welfare reform, and, along with Carter, championed deregulation. It was largely democrats who presided over the deregulation of the energy industry. Bush and the Republicans passed the huge prescription mediare drug benefit.
These aren’t unusual: they are commonplace.
So when you say:
“The GOP is more disposed to finding free-market solutions; the Dems believe in activist government to solve problems.”
You are accepting someone’s campaign rhetoric as reality. As to Republican “free market” solutions, their record is hardly stellar (you can find any number of comparisons of economic performance under Republican v Democratic presidents, and Republicans don’t usually fare well eg: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/08/comparing-presidents-rankings-of.html; http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm). Although you may claim my links are biased, it is hard to make the case for Republican economic stewardship being vastly superior to Democratic stewardship. So their supposed “free market solutions” don’t really help the economy.
That’s probably because Republicans don’t support anything resembling a free market. They have supported shipping jobs overseas (along with Democrats). They have supported runaway deficits just as much as Democrats (Reagan ran historic deficits, as did Bush II…Obama is the current king, but Clinton on the other hand made some progress towards a balanced budget…and NOW Frum et al is bashing him for, of all things, proposing a spending freeze).
And Democrats don’t oppose free market solutions. They never have.
I think your formulation is completely false: Republicans have no love of free markets, and Democrats don’t prefer government solutions to the market.
You must log in to post a comment.