Presidential/Political Communication

Presidential & Political Communication

Audios

What Small Business Owners Can Learn From Political Communications

Ruth Sherman’s Interview on The Small Business Advocate radio show with Jim Blasingame. (September 19, 2008)

Audio Length – 15:24 Minutes

LISTEN TO This Radio Show

What Business Leaders Can Learn From Presidential Communication

Ruth Sherman’s Interview on The Small Business Advocate radio show with Jim Blasingame. (June 13, 2008)

Audio Length – 15:24 Minutes

LISTEN TO This Radio Show

Press

UK’s Daily Mail, January 20, 2009 (Link/Download)

Barack Obama to Draw on JFK’s Famous Ask not Speech for His Own Inauguration

The San Francisco Chronicle, January 18, 2009 (Link/Download)

Lofty Expectations for Obama’s Inaugural Speech

The National Journal, January 17, 2009 (Link/Download)

10 Keys to a Successful Presidency

The New York Times, October 9, 2008 (Link/Download)

In Manner, Obama is Far From Clintonesque

The New York Times, September 26, 2008 (Link/Download)

In Manner, Obama is Far From Clintonesque

Articles

Analyzing Obama’s Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama’s inaugural speech, though not one for the record books, was still very good. The speech covered a wide range of issues. The language he used had a level of sophistication, but remained accessible to the average person; he didn’t talk down. The themes were simple and although they were not new, they sounded new as they do with each new president.

The president understood that he was speaking not only to the American people, but to the world. I strongly encourage you to read the speech. Not surprisingly, as it is a written composition, the eye catches nuances the ears do not. I like it better each time I read it.

It was about 2500 words and took slightly more than 20 minutes to deliver. That is a fairly rapid clip. It is also about as formal as speeches get. Most of us will never deliver such a formal speech. Still, there is much we can learn.

A Good Speech Must Have Form

Like any composition, a good speech has a form that goes beyond a beginning, middle and end. All good speeches have a roundness to them, a fluidness of writing and thought, and strong openings and closes. An inaugural speech must also be inspirational, motivational, and diplomatic. Following is how the speech flowed:

Part 1: President Obama began the speech in the customary way, expressing his humility and thanking his predecessor for his service. He quickly transitioned into strong but generalized descriptions of the difficulties the country faces, targeting our “collective failure,” and setting out his worldview.

Part 2: The next section inspiringly described how Americans successfully managed through past crises and assured us we can do the same.

Part 3: He then listed a number of domestic action steps, corrections of past policies, and dismissed naysayers.

Part 4: Foreign policy came next and he spent a good deal of time on this. He included stern warnings to those who would do us harm and promises of help to those who need it.

Part 5: This began with an homage to our servicemen and women, then moved into a discussion of values, reminding us that we have strayed and coaxing us to return to the these values as the keys to helping us through our crises.

Part 6: He began his close by hearkening back to Revolutionary times and quoted George Washington from a moment in history when Washington thought the Revolution was lost. Obama ended strongly by imploring us to remember Washington’s words and assuring us that we, too, have the mettle to succeed.

A Good Speech Must Have a Theme

The President continued to drive home his theme of unity that he repeatedly spoke about throughout his campaign: “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”

Another theme was upending conventional wisdom: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...” and “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” The purpose here was to shift the audience from placing blame and complaining to taking charge and solving problems. This was a tributary of the unity theme and added some freshness to what is a boilerplate approach to inaugural speeches.

A Good Speech Must Be Poetic

In poetry, attention is paid to the rhythm – in the musical sense – of the words and verses as well as the language that is used. The same is true of formal speeches such as the inaugural. President Obama used a number of rhetorical flourishes to make the speech accessible and memorable.

1. Metaphor is a way of understanding one concept in terms of another. It is Obama’s hands-down favorite rhetorical tool and his speech was filled with it: “The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms” and, “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them…” and, “…we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Metaphor taps into emotions, enlivens ideas and is widely used in everyday speech. Start noticing how frequently you use and hear it and work on using it in your public presentations.

2. To intensify meaning, there is asyndeton, the listing of ideas and concepts without using conjunctions: “…humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors,” and, “…the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
For a powerful impact, try asyndeton using a hushed voice.

3. Repeating an opening phrase in successive sentences is known as anaphora and the effect is mesmerizing, even hypnotic: “This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence…. This is the meaning of our liberty…”

(The opposite of anaphora is epistrophe in which successive clauses end with the same words or affirmation: “Yes we can!”)

4. One of the most potent lines in Obama’s speech made use of a dactyl, a form of metrical foot, defined as a pattern of word and syllable stress that creates a rhythm of 2 or 3 beats. Dactyl is one stressed word or syllable followed by two unstressed words or syllables: “Our SPIRit is STRONger and CANnot be BROken. You CANnot outLAST us, and WE will deFEAT you.”

We speak in rhythmic patterns all the time. Think about how we remember something as mundane as a phone number: ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN (the eighth beat is silent). When someone speaks a phone number with the “wrong” stress pattern, as happens abroad, it’s confusing.

5. “Faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents,” contains alliteration, which is a preponderance of a phonetic sound, in this case, F. Antithesis is where words used in the second half of an expression overturn the words in the first: “…know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” (Chiasmus is a form of antithesis where words in the second half are reversed, one of the most famous examples of which is JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country.”)

A Good Speech Must Be Delivered Well

Barack Obama is the best deliverer of speeches in a generation, better, in my opinion, than Kennedy. I’ve written extensively about Obama’s delivery skills and nonverbal communication, so I’m not going to go into detail here with one exception: Obama’s voice. His voice is a huge nonverbal asset, a rich, round, warm baritone that he wields beautifully. In one passage, toward the end, he became quiet, adjusting his voice to a stage whisper: “And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us ALL.” Only the most surefooted and skilled speakers can make this work.

Finally, a good speech rises and falls with crescendos of volume and pitch that build an emotional connection. There are pauses and silences, too, that add to the suspense.

What would have made it a great speech? Certainly a memorable line would have elevated it (only one is necessary). Also, transitions were a bit weak and, as I mentioned earlier, the themes were not original. With such a gifted speaker, the expectations are high, but not unrealistically so. As he warms to the job, I expect to hear words that do make the record books.

“It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear” – Frank Luntz

I’m in the middle of reading a fabulous book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear, by Frank Luntz. Luntz has made his fortune advising Republican politicians on communication strategy and crafting their messages. Luntz is responsible for converting “estate tax” to “death tax,” and “drilling for oil” to “energy exploration.” His handiwork teaches important lessons about the power of language to motivate and persuade.

If you are in the business of persuasion (and if you aren’t, you are not really in business), you MUST read this book. If your politics lean more leftward, don’t let it stop you. Luntz is a master and he lets us in on his many secrets here.

What Luntz writes about so knowledgeably is that to persuade, a number of linguistic issues must be considered. He mentions 10 “musts,” but I’m going to focus on the four that I think are the most important.

Brevity – Reduce your thoughts to the least number of words that work. Think about a few of the most memorable and effective advertising slogans: Got Milk? I’m Lovin’ It, They’re Greeeeaaaattt! Also, think visually and I’m not talking about loading up your PowerPoint with everything you’ve ever thought on a topic. Keep visuals simple and impactful. (For more on this, read my FC blog post Death to PowerPoint!

Credibility – How many times have you seen the words “new and improved” and know it’s nonsense? We have to make sure our messages are backed up by our product or service. People see through it, otherwise, and faster than you might think. And recovering from this type of mistake is difficult. Once people are made to feel foolish, it’s very difficult to undo the damage and bring them back into the fold.

Consistency – I call this message discipline and without it, we’re doomed as communicators and business people. The best at this skill develop phrases and messages that work and then repeat, repeat, repeat. Ad nauseum. While in certain communications the same, exact words don’t have to be used each and every time, any variations should be very slight and really, it’s safer to stick with the original words. Boring? Yes (to the speaker). But very effective. Sticking with a good message takes determination and, as I mentioned above, discipline.

Speak Aspirationally – This cannot be overstated. Language that gives people a reason to act is the best kind. Think I have a dream or A diamond is forever. It doesn’t have to be positive or flowery language, either.

An example of how to convert a ho-hum message to language that conforms to 3 of 4 of Luntz’s rules follows:

Hillary Clinton recently started delivering a new stump speech. In it, she used the following language:

“Restore America’s standing in the world.”

“Rebuild America’s middle class and the economy to support it.”

“Reform our government.”

“Reclaim the future for our children.”

This language follows a number of rhetorical principles: active verbs, parallel language and alliteration. Restore is a good word implying that something has been destroyed. Rebuild implies something similar. Reform brings change to mind. Reclaim is the best word because it implies that something has been wrongly taken away—even stolen—by someone (guess who?). Reclaim gets the nervous system firing. It’s a rich and motivational word could be used for all four of those statements:

“Reclaim America’s standing in the world.”

“Reclaim America for the middle class.”

“Reclaim our government.”

“Reclaim the future for our children.”

Brief, consistent and aspirational. (Credibility, in this case, rests with the speaker and that is a judgment best left to each reader.)

By changing just one word (and a little wordsmithing for the second statement), this message morphs from something that’s not very inspirational and, frankly, forgettable, into a memorable series of statements that builds in impact and pushes all the right emotional buttons. In fact, if people just remember the word Reclaim and associate it with Hillary Clinton, it will have been a success. Powerful stuff.

I’m only about halfway through Luntz’s book and will write more when I finish it. In the interim, think about your communication. Start by examining the words you use. See if they conform to the rules above. It’s not easy to come up with this material, which is why people like Frank Luntz are able to get rich doing it for others. Buy the book and you’ll have a head start.

Luntz, Frank; Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear; Hyperion, 2007

How Obama Does It

It was widely reported that the Barack Obama for President campaign raised an astonishing $32.5 Million in the second quarter. I am not surprised and here’s a little story as to one of the reasons why. A month or two ago, my friend Dave answered the phone of a colleague. Since the colleague was not around, Dave asked if he could take a message. What was that message? “Tell him Senator Obama called to say thank you.”

Dave was stunned. Now I don’t know how much this fellow contributed to Barack Obama’s campaign but I have heard about people who received a call from the senator after having contributed as little as $100. Obama knows that this type of outreach pays back big time because the person who gets the call tells his or her friends, who tell their friends, etc. Soon, that $100 is multiplied exponentially. The result? $32.5 million in the space of three months.

We all know that Obama has charisma and writes soaring oratory that he then delivers beautifully. But he gets all the interpersonal stuff right, too. He seems to have a real instinct for it. It seems effortless. That’s the way it’s supposed to look. I would bet, however, that the Obama Show is as effortless as an Olympic downhill event. So how does he do it?

It’s accepted as a best practice. A decision was made early on that this type of communication had the potential to put Obama’s fundraising in hyper-drive.
There’s a budget for it. Time and resources are expended.

It’s recognized as a differentiator that gives Obama an edge over the other candidates.

There is a system in place to make it happen. It’s not haphazard. Calling to say “Thank-you” and other high-touch outreach is part of the DNA of the Obama campaign.

It’s delivered with warmth and sincerity by the candidate, himself. Ordinary citizens — who form most of the electorate — feel valued. When’s the last time you felt valued by a politician?

Oh, and lest I forget, my friend Dave’s colleague also contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You guessed it: No call.

I don’t know if Obama will eventually get the nomination or not. But what I do know is he has set the bar very high. This is powerful stuff.

Don’t you wish Microsoft, Apple or other vendors who keep us on hold for the honor of buying their products would take a page from Barack Obama?

Hillary’s New Video

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton (finally) announced that she was running for president. In a video posted to her website, Senator Clinton, sitting in what looked like her living room, officially entered the ’08 race. I always love to watch political candidates and analyze their communication styles mainly because they provide so much fodder. I believe that at the presidential level, the better communicator will win the election. Going back as far as Ronald Reagan, this has been true. By the way, the candidate does not have to be great (some of you may remember the first Bush v. Dukakis), just better.

So, how’d she do? Pretty well, I think. It was a performance that I, for one, had never seen from her. She has always had an issue with her public persona, coming across as cold and hard-edged, charisma sorely lacking, making it difficult for her to connect. For those reasons and because she has a reputation for being polarizing and is despised by many, I have been telling anyone who would listen that she didn’t have much of a chance of winning a primary, no less a general election.

In the video, Mrs. Clinton looked relaxed, comfortable, even like she was having some fun. She called it a conversation and so she tried to make it sound conversational. One of her biggest problems has been her vocal technique; in her political speeches, she has always made a classic vocal mistake, substituting volume for expression (Al Gore does this, too). She did not do that this time. Instead, her vocal variety was natural, allowing her feelings to show through her voice. Her eye contact was direct, but sincere. She used her hands naturally, discarding the usual habit of keeping them motionless, resting on the lap during a “talking head” type TV appearance. Her head tilted and turned appropriately. She leaned forward and moved purposefully but smoothly, changing position at one point by resting her arm on a pillow while continuing to gesture from the new position. Her outfit was not a distraction and blended with the earth tones and general neutrality of the décor.

As far as the production values go, they were mostly excellent. The lighting and makeup were both flattering. The sound picked up on the best parts of her voice, eliminating her tendence toward nasality. There was something going on with the camera doing this nearly imperceptible panning during the close-up shots –- not sure why that was -– perhaps to trick the viewing eye into believing there was movement when there really was not -– I just don’t know about that.

The most interesting thing to me was that her verbal message said nothing new but her nonverbals did. She seemed reasonable, likeable and warm, hard edges considerably softened. And given a choice between the words themselves and how someone looks and sounds when saying them, people will generally be more influenced by the latter.

As Hillary Clinton has no doubt discovered, albeit somewhat late, style matters. It makes a difference. And for political candidates at the national level, video style — on television or on the Internet — will make or break a candidacy because these are the places the electorate gets its info about candidates. They don’t read newspapers or policy papers. In addition, people vote for candidates they like, or at least like better than the competition, and who seem more like themselves. You can’t get that type of information by reading.

So, the questions now become, can she sustain the new communication style? Will it develop into charisma? Will her personal “story,” yet to be told, be well crafted? (Remember George W. Bush as a brush-clearing rancher with a dusty pickup truck and a dog v. John Kerry, Nantucket windsurfer?) Those questions will have to remain unanswered for the time being.

The fun begins.