My Theory

My Theory - I love oratory. A really great piece of public speech can be a wonder to behold.

Lileks talks about some of the speeches of note this past week:

I heard four speeches this week – one by Carville before some firefighters, screaming like cat that had been dipped in turpentine; one from Kerry about something or other (it’s hard to stick with it; he sounds like a 45 RPM record played at 33 1/, and you keep making revolving-hand motions in the hopes you can somehow, like a butterfly that flutters its wings in Brazil and causes typhoons in Tahiti, cause him to pick up the pace a little); one from Dick Cheney, and one from Bush. Cheney’s speech was tailor-made for his speaking style, which consists of pressing the point of the sword into the opponant’s arguments and slowly pushing the entire blade in with steady force. Bush’s speech had many thick sheets of boilerplate, but it had economy and optimism.

This prompts me to think there's a pattern here; let's look at some of the last several elections:

• 2002 Minnesota Gubernatorial: Three speaking styles on display: Funny, natural stump speaker (Pawlenty) versus condescending, smug and irritating (Tim Penny) versus dull and inept (Roger Moe). Pawlenty wins.
• 2002 Minnesota US Senate: Smooth, natural speaker (Norm Coleman) versus collegial-but-dull speaker (Mondale, who was also hampered by his well-earned age). Coleman wins.
• 2000 Presidential: Irritating, condescending, lispy, crushingly-declamatory (Gore) versus rough but personable and optimistic (Bush). Bush wins.
• 2000 Minnesota US Senate: Smooth but not especially comfortable speaker (Rod Grams) versus slick-but-preening dullard (Dayton): Dayton wins.
• Entertaining, crude loose cannon (Ventura) versus smooth and natural (Coleman) versus collegial-but-"please kill me"-dull speaker (Skip Humphrey). Ventura wins.
• 1996 Presidential: Optimistic, slick (Clinton) versus stilted-but-occasionally-wry (Dole). Clinton wins.
• 1994 Minnesota Senate: Smooth but not especially comfortable (Rod Grams) versus shrill and irritating (Ann Wynia). Grams wins.
• 1992 Presidential: Optimistic and slick (Clinton) versus genial but uncomfortable (Bush Sr). Clinton wins.
• 1998 Presidential: Genial but uncomfortable (Bush Sr) versus dull and scolding (Dukakis). Bush wins.
• 1994 Presidential: Epic communicator (Reagan) versus collegial but dull (Mondale). Reagan wins.
• 1980 Presidential: Epic communicator (Reagan) versus earnest but irritating (Carter). Reagan wins.

My theory should be obvious; in most elections, the better public speaker wins. Sometimes the definition of "better" is squishy - Ventura is a terrible speaker, but he knows how to entertain and he gets body language, which is as important as your writing style. Sometimes the theory doesn't work - Mark Dayton isn't much better a speaker than John Kerry - but other factors are at play (the media lynched Rod Grams).

However, for the most part, the better oratorical communicator wins the election.

George W. Bush's speaking style is strained at times, but when he's on focus, he's blazingly effective. John Kerry is - words fail - dreadful. Worse than Dukakis. Nay - worse than the interminable bore, Gore. (On the state level, nobody will ever score worse than Roger Moe, a man who learned oratory from dairy cattle).

By this standard, Bush has an edge going into November, and - if taken to its illogical conclusion - John Kerry will be lucky to be elected to the Nantucket school board.

Posted by Mitch at March 19, 2004 02:49 AM