How would the classical philosophers view today's political speakers? What are the keys to a good speech?
My first recollection of a political speech can be summed-up in a sound bite: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". I didn't hear it firsthand, I'm too young for that. I'm not sure where I heard it but it lingers in my mind.
Examples of how political speeches have influenced our experiences are myriad; from the aggressive, dictatorial rhetoric in the early half of the 20th century, to the inspirational, uplifting rhetoric of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. The era of managing by dictate ended and was replaced by an era of managing by inspiration. Indeed, rhetoric has filtered through our society in many ways: from motivating employees at management seminars, to treating patients in psychiatric wards. Much of what is known today of speech was first discovered by the ancient Greeks.
The study of rhetoric by the ancient Greeks was primarily intended to perfect speech for use in the law courts. A rhetor was a man who could advise on the best way to present a legal case. The connection between law and rhetoric probably explains why most politicians were trained as lawyers.
Rhetoric is defined as "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, or, language with a persuasive or impressive effect, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content".
Classical rhetoric was generally broken-down into two main areas: the principles of eloquence, (like our modern-day English or creative writing), and the art of persuasion. Delivery and charm were very important ingredients, as they are now.
The three types of rhetoric are: judicial / forensic, the type used in law; deliberative, used in government for policy; and demonstrative, the type used in rallies and preaching. Tony Blair was one politician who could successfully utilize all three in his speeches, whilst Martin Luther King epitomised demonstrative speaking.
What are the keys to a successful speech? Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) said that: "The greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor". A metaphor establishes a comparison between two things, the purpose of which is to evoke an image. Ronald Reagan often described America as a "beacon" to the rest of the world. However, when war is discussed, there is a reversal in the process of metaphor attribution. For example, phrases like "striking" "collateral damage" and "mopping-up" are used. During Gulf War II, Blair often used the word "engaged" to describe attacks on Iraq. Such phraseology is used to avoid the creation of images, or, to give the listener a more acceptable image of events.
Aristotle suggested competency in three areas: personality and style, the arousal of emotion, and reasoning. In these categories can be seen the classical model of Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Pathos is concerned with emotional engagement; often utilizing metaphor. George W. Bush's most important weapon during Gulf War II was his linguistic dexterity using pathos to convince the American people. He relied on his words being able to move people - making them angry, sad and fearful in equal measure. Logos is the logical appeal of the speech, providing proof and facts in the speech. This was one of Blair's strengths; providing evidence for his arguments. Being a barrister, this was completely natural to him.
Aristotle said that one should try to convince the audience that the speaker possessed intelligence, virtue and goodwill. Here, we can see the allusion to the importance of a moral code in rhetoric. Virtue, suggests that the speaker should have values, goodness and discipline. Goodwill suggests that the speaker should have good intentions. These are qualities that are important to an electorate, but as always, are sadly lacking in our politicians. For Aristotle, good rhetoric is good argument made by a speaker with good intentions.
In ancient Greece, memory was important, as one would not read their speeches during delivery. This skill is somewhat redundant now but one can still appreciate its effectiveness, both in modern law practice, and political discourse. David Cameron, the British conservative leader famously memorized the speech he delivered at the 2005 conservative conference. The speech made him as a credible contender for the conservative leadership.
Plato (ca. 428 BC - 347 BC) distrusted rhetoricians. In the same way that we distrust advertising or public relations executives, Plato had a suspicion of them. Socrates (ca. 470 BC - 399 BC) shared Plato's opinion, believing that oratory pandered to the mob. He called it a "counterfeit activity". Essentially, Plato's criticisms of rhetoric centred around the oft believed idea that rhetoric presents an alluring surface, the purpose of which is to attract people. Blair was constantly accused of this very thing; creating an alluring surface argument in order to get votes and garner support. Throughout rhetoric's history, style over substance has been a major concern - there is a sense that a flamboyant style such as Blair's or Clinton's, suggests dishonesty.
In the ancient world, knowledge and experience were essential to speakers. So a good education and a practical experience of trial law would seem to be the modern assets that a classical philosopher would approve of. Many of the rules of classic rhetoric still hold true today, but with the advent of the professional speechwriter, rhetoric is no longer the sole responsibility of the speaker.
Obama, McCain and Britain's Gordon Brown have yet to fully demonstrate their rhetorical prowess - we will see in the next few months if they can inspire us. I wonder what JFK would say about them. Modern rhetoric has a lot to live up to.
