Modern speeches leave much to be desired
Politics continue to disappoint without the rhetoric of former, better days.
Zack Shovein
Issue date: 9/23/08 Section: Opinion
The election season in American politics is now underway. Both of the candidates are making their attempts to rally their dedicated supporters and draw to their campaigns the backing of the undecided.
In our modern age there are many ways this is done; there are few forms of communication that are not used in some way by our politicians.
By far my favorite is the prepared speech. No other medium has the potential to excite passion and overwhelm the listener with fervor.
Maybe you disagree, though. Maybe you have not felt that wave of enthusiasm, that overpowering feeling of agreement that a good speech can produce. But that is no fault of the medium.
In a different age not so far removed from our own, these qualities were more common. They were common enough that a speech could not be considered good if it failed in this regard. It is the fault of our modern politicians-indeed, the fault of our modern society-that our discourse has been degraded and this beautiful art lost.
Too few people now even know what a well-crafted speech looks like. You won't find one on the news networks.
To find a good model one must look to history. William Jennings Bryan, an American politician from the beginning of the 20th century, provides such a model in his famous Cross of Gold speech.
In this speech he takes a pressing issue, the gold standard, and speaks with great force in favor of bimetallism.
That description probably sounds boring- certainly today economic issues seem mundane.
A good speaker, like Bryan, can impress upon his listener the great importance of the question being addressed; he can make his listeners feel the human impact of whatever decision is made.
There's no reason other than the failures of our politicians as to why a speech with that quality could not be made today.
A few weeks ago I watched Sarah Palin give her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
It sickened me.
In our modern age there are many ways this is done; there are few forms of communication that are not used in some way by our politicians.
By far my favorite is the prepared speech. No other medium has the potential to excite passion and overwhelm the listener with fervor.
Maybe you disagree, though. Maybe you have not felt that wave of enthusiasm, that overpowering feeling of agreement that a good speech can produce. But that is no fault of the medium.
In a different age not so far removed from our own, these qualities were more common. They were common enough that a speech could not be considered good if it failed in this regard. It is the fault of our modern politicians-indeed, the fault of our modern society-that our discourse has been degraded and this beautiful art lost.
Too few people now even know what a well-crafted speech looks like. You won't find one on the news networks.
To find a good model one must look to history. William Jennings Bryan, an American politician from the beginning of the 20th century, provides such a model in his famous Cross of Gold speech.
In this speech he takes a pressing issue, the gold standard, and speaks with great force in favor of bimetallism.
That description probably sounds boring- certainly today economic issues seem mundane.
A good speaker, like Bryan, can impress upon his listener the great importance of the question being addressed; he can make his listeners feel the human impact of whatever decision is made.
There's no reason other than the failures of our politicians as to why a speech with that quality could not be made today.
A few weeks ago I watched Sarah Palin give her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
It sickened me.
Be the first to comment on this story