Look Out Demosthenes!
In Sunday's Observer Christopher Hitchens' long time friend Martin Amis referred to the author,atheist, and intellectual-at-large Hitchens as a "terrifying orator" and a debater he would "back. . . against Cicero, against Demosthenes." In responding to that assertion, which I consider dear if misguided, I thought perhaps I might finally contribute to the Ricochet community and share some of my thoughts on another famous speaker of our age: President Obama.
Now I took an in-depth (line-by-line!) look at one of President Obama's speeches a few months ago and from that long essay I'll present a summarized version of my findings and solicit your recommendations for more contemporary speeches that might hold up against the standards of antiquity. So here are my thoughts, and a truncated version of the framework by which I judged, President Obama's First Inaugural Address, hailed by The New Republic during the administration's salad days as "worthy of marble." So is it?
The Presidential Inaugural Address is, to use Aristotle's categories, part political and part epideictic. That is, it is partly concerned with urging a particular course of action and partly concerned with esteeming something. The speech fails as a political speech on account of its vagueness. It conveys no course of action on which one can deliberate and it does not attempt to persuade. It can be an effective course not to present the ideas of your opponents, as this speech does, but the course you do suggest must be all the more clear. As Aristotle says, the duty of rhetoric is to deal with matters for which we have no arts or system so guide us and which seem to present us with alternate possibilities. This speech presents us with neither anything to accept nor anything to reject. The job of the speaker is to make clear and appealing a particular course of action. (Too, it would rhetorically have been effective to concede a point, perhaps to re-frame it or to use its truth to his advantage, or simply to appear magnanimous.)
As a ceremonial speech it is more successful because it praises the American way of life although is more successful as an epideictic speech when it simply extols the virtues of "loyalty and patriotism" than when it attempts to be grand with vague blandishments and stock serious-sounding phrases like "Guided by these principles once more" and "hatreds shall someday pass." Too it is unacceptably bland and boring. In this respect the prose style of the speech is a tremendous weakness and the prime reason it fails to paint a picture. A few notes about its style:
- It is quite light on figurative language. A) It is very literal and unbeautiful. B) It does not offer us the chance to reflect on the truthfulness or beauty of its ideas.
- It lacks elaborate syntactical constructions. A) It does not take advantage of word placement to create drama, emphasis, contrast, or climax. B) It does not use the structure to complement the argument. C) The periodic length is very short and thus the ideas are easy to follow.
- Overall there is insufficient attention to the flow from thought to thought.
- It does not take advantage of any prose cadences or pay attention to the euphony of the words.
- There are very few details, examples, or specifics.
- There are a lot of weak verbs like "are" and "is" which are lost opportunities to be more specific and vivid.
- The clauses are heavily dependent on the word "that" for clarity.
- The vocabulary is limited, simple, common, and extremely bland.
- There is an overabundance of adjectives, clearly used a crutch to compensate for the weak verbs and generic nouns.
These faults, especially the "weak verbs" and lack of attention to large-scale structure (parallelism, anti-parallelism, using certain words or parts of speech in topical and structural ways, et cetera), rob the speech of intensity, variety,climax, and ultimately the ability to persuade.
We may note, a la Aristotle, that three modes of persuasion exist: 1) of the personal character of the speaker, 2) putting the audience in a particular frame of mind, 3) proof or apparent proof of the words themselves. I pass over the first since it would be tantamount to a political analysis. We have also observed that the speech does not address specific points of policy, thus it does not attempt to prove anything (mode 3.) The only mode remaining is that of putting the audience in a frame of mind.
The speech certainly seems to be of this nature as it attempts to paint a situation of a new beginning and a fresh start. In this respect the speech's lack of argumentation is not a weakness and it somewhat succeeds in getting the audience to put things out of their minds. For a speech of this nature, though, the lack of attractiveness of the prose and the lack of structure (which would amplify the euphoric feeling it attempts to generate) are severe detriments. It needed to paint two vivid pictures: one of the past and one of the present. The speech did not do this. With such strengths and flaws I cannot see how someone who was not already in favor of President Obama could have been persuaded by the speech. (Recall "Mode 1" mentioned above.) This speech simply does not seem designed to win over critics. The plans it presents are not specific enough even to acknowledge as plans, the praise is not specific enough to endear, it is not grand enough to impress, it is not beautiful enough to captivate, and there is no attempt to persuade by argument. Too it does not succeed in developing a plain style, a grand style, or a moderate one.
Simply put, there is no sense of purpose of direction, only a vague feeling that plods along because the speaker keeps talking. We feel like we are being told facts, taught even, when we should feel like we are being drawn into a narrative.
So that's my summary of this speech. Worthy of marble? Not quite. (You can read the full, line-by-line analysis with full summary and footnotes on my blog, as well as my take on Amis' aforementioned piece.)
Lastly, thank you for reading my first post on Ricochet! I know President Obama has not been so hailed as a great speaker in a while but the topic certainly comes up on the podcast and for my part I've always been flummoxed and perturbed by the assumptions of his brilliance, even by his critics. Too as a classicist I'm always skeptical of facile comparisons with the ancient world and its great figures. I would appreciate your feedback and recommendations of other speeches, from President Obama or any American President, that might merit such analysis. Of course I would love to hear more of Peter's thoughts on this topic. Are there any specific speeches we should look at? Do you think this might make a fun and interesting series? I admit the criticism is harsh and the standards high, but I think calling something "worthy of marble" invites such scrutiny.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Nice analysis. I'd be interested in some of our speechwriters' takes on the points you make.
I'd only add two points:
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I agree and would also be interested in our speechwriters' comments on your overall analytical approach, which I find intriguing. Great first post, Nick.
Jun '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I think you should mention also that his way of speaking is faux-gravitas. His pauses drive me crazy and they are oddly placed and really the result of a hack trying to find what works with people who have no discrimination at all. People are so in their minds about the Obama phenomenon that they can't feel him, they can't read him. Really, they don't want to get a good read on him because it might not match the idealized vision of him, with which they are entranced. They are bound to be disappointed. This cannot end well.
Jul '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I don't know much about all this fancy analysis. But I know horse puckey when I hear it.
Mar '11
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
It's maybe more appropriate to compare Mr Obama to an actor reading a script (on a teleprompter).
His sonorous voice, emphases and pauses. His use of colloquial words and mannerisms, facial expressions, and so on. Sometimes, fake Greek columns or reverberation are added, for effect.
It doesn't much matter about the words - usually they say nothing of consequence.
It is all in the performance, and it's hypnotic effect on the gullible.
"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).
Edited on Apr 27, 2011 at 2:49pmMar '11
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
A bit off-topic, but I've never been too impressed with Hitchens as a debater, at least not against religion. Most of his debates just seems to be good opportunities to advertise his books. Except for his political debates. That's where Hitchens really shines. I've never seen anything quite so ferocious.
Sep '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I like your analysis for the sheer fact that it is deconstructionist in its approach to the fallacy of "The One." It reminds me of work by Paul Johnson, the historian and his deconstruciton of left-wing icons in his book Intellectuals. Get them where they think they stand, by pointing out that others are as intellectually strong as they think they are.
Oratory skills are always in the ears of the beholder. If you like what he is saying, or have a liberal guilt complex so strong that you convince yourself that it must be great, then it is a great speech worthy of marble. If you don't like what he is saying, or have no guilt complex, then what he is saying seems rather pedestrian at best.
Rarely does this guy ever say anything that makes me feel proud to be an American, or cause me any reaction other than cynicism. He certainly is no Reagan. I guess I just didn't get it when people went all gaga over this guy in 2008. Maybe its because I knew enough about his lackluster performance in the Illinois senate to know he was second rate at best.
Jul '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Conservative Episcopalian:
Oratory skills are always in the ears of the beholder. If you like what he is saying... then it is a great speech worthy of marble.
I would suggest that this also applies to a certain, um, prominent figure on the right.
Sep '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Great American orators are great because they draw on the rich heritage in the Enlightenment and classical ideas that formed the basis of American exceptionalism in the founding documents of the United States. Since Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and had an evidently unexceptional, derivative, Ivy League education and then befriended various and sundry Alinskyite hacks I would expect his speeches to read like candy floss upon further examination.
Keep up the good work, and I look forward to the rest of your analysis.
Jun '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
As with Wagner's music, Obama's speeches aren't as bad as they sound.
Aug '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I'm trying to imagine some of the great orators of history speaking like Obama. For instance, imagine if Cicero had talked like this:
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Octavian in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another faction? And I confess that if all that I knew of Octavian were the snippets of those proscriptions that have run in an endless loop in the forum, or if the second triumvirate conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I know accepted me after the death of Cato, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to preserve the state. He is a man who served his country by raising legions; who has studied and lectured under some of the finest rhetors in the country, and who for the last few years has supported magnificent gladiatorial games.
Aug '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
or imagine if Reagan had said:
Mr. Gorbachev, (pause), there are some who say that if you desire peace this wall must be torn down. There are some who say if you desire peace this wall must stand forever. I say that this wall could be replaced with a sturdy fence.
Feb '11
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
The line by line analysis is helpful too.
Obama: "But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed."
Analysis: "What journey was that? Carrying forward the 'noble idea' and working for the next generation."
Anyone think that "standing pat" and "putting off unpleasant decisions" might be perfect descriptions for failing to enact entitlement reform?
Jun '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Exactly right. Hitchens seems out of his depth in religious debates. He uses tropes and straw men for almost all his major objections. This isn't like him really. He is most fun to watch when he's on straight political topics. I think he is not a great philosopher or deep thinker. Some people call him a polymath but I disagree. He is a natural speaker and rhetorician. He's very fast on his feet in this respect.
But where he really shines is in his writing. There he's an artist.
(You're right about being off topic, maybe Hitchens should be a separate post. He is truly a unique and fascinating person.)
Sep '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
I'm trying to imagine some of the great orators of history speaking like Obama.
"And I'm, like, hey, Cato - babe, chill with the down low 'know what I'm sayin'?. And the togas. What's with the togas? I mean this is Rome, shouldn't I get a little more finery in my life? Some imported spices? Exotic middle eastern women?
Edited on Apr 27, 2011 at 5:27pmDec '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Whistling "s"s and "folks". It's all I ever hear in an Obama speech. He's so pretentious, it sets my teeth on edge. I don't listen to him if I can help it.
Great first post though!
Jan '11
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Thank you all for the comments, suggestions, and kind encouragement!
David may be onto something: is President Obama perhaps a better actor than rhetor? Is this bad? Has the actor replaced the rhetor as the politician has the statesman and the "Tweeter" the man of letters?
Larry and Abdiel, I think you're spot on about Hitchens. He's sharp (really, quite sharp), honest, informed, and passionate (So much that many of us pass over his occasional ungentlemanly, yet hysterical, candor), but not so persuasive on matters philosophical.
I'm glad you appreciated the detail, Measure and Cons. Episcopalian. I looked everywhere for what liberals see but I couldn't find it!
I knew President Reagan would come up quickly; I was going to proceed chronologically but perhaps we may look at his work sooner due to his reputation and nearness to us. Though I'm presently looking forward to starting Adams due to his considerable classical education. We should surely see that he does, as Pseudodionysius has fairly suggested President Obama does not, speak the language of the Enlightenment.
Thanks again to everyone!
Aug '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
Ottoman Umpire:
Couldn't agree more. I do some voiceover work in my job, and I've become quite attuned to how well people's voices 'work' when amplified and broadcast. Obama's voice is very good in this way; baritone and warm, and not too gravelly. I suspect sometimes his smoking has actually enhanced it (doesn't smoking tend to rough up the pipes just a bit and give some depth to male voices?).
I find it odd how little attention most of us pay to the quality of voices when we discuss speechmaking (other than the frequent complaints that a former Republican vice-presidential candidate's voice is too screechy). I think voice quality has a strong affect on our perceptions of a speaker's attractiveness and credibility. It's not fair, but that's the way it is.
BTW, someone who does pay close attention to this phenomenon is the British crime novelist P D James. She frequently describes her characters' voices, and their effects on listeners, in vivid detail.
Edited on Apr 27, 2011 at 6:40pmJan '11
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
You know that's well-noted Ottoman Umpire and Mr. Tall. Aristotle too mentions pitch, modulation, and rhythm in Book III of the Rhetoric. Also I think you're right that the impressions someone's voice makes on us are unavoidable, perhaps subconscious, and thus sometimes unfortunate. President Obama certainly benefits from his voice in this regard. I would add, though (and this is really nitpicky) that he often lets one word or syllable slip out suddenly, which makes it seem loud, and lets it hang there for a while by itself before continuing. I can't say whether its deliberate or not or what he might be intending to do by it, but I find it very jarring.
Also, I should not have so negatively characterized "actor" in my comment above. There is clearly overlap in the performative aspect of persuasion; Demosthenes himself learned from an actor. Yet Aristotle, again in Rhetoric III, is too somewhat loath to discuss "delivery." (Since we only have to dress things up to charm people who we cannot persuade with reason.)
May '10
Re: Look Out Demosthenes!
anon_academic: or imagine if Reagan had said:
Mr. Gorbachev, (pause), there are some who say that if you desire peace this wall must be torn down. There are some who say if you desire peace this wall must stand forever. I say that this wall could be replaced with a sturdy fence. · Apr 27 at 4:39pm
hilarious! Can I quote this on my Facebook page?