Executive Communication Coach, Presentation Skills, Public Speaking, Speechwriting,
Political Rhetoric
 |
Presidential Address on Iraq - September 7, 2003
With very little new information, Bush attempted through pure language and rhetorical construction to re-establish the link between the war in Iraq and the fight against terror. Was he successful? That's our job today, to analyze the speech, determine Bush's effectiveness in achieving his goals, and glean lessons that we can all use in our public speaking. Why the Speech? The first question that must be asked is why did Bush make this speech? Ostensibly it was to ask Congress for $87 billion to fund our continuing presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in reality, his ultimate objective and target audience was much larger. With the body count slowly but steadily rising, the economy still in the doldrums and Bush's approval ratings slipping, the Administration clearly felt something had to be done. The masters of the spin, they sought to re-frame the terms of the debate so that the controversial action in Iraq was made relevant to the more universally supported fight against terrorism, to stress that we were not trying to go it along, and to continue to cast Bush as a war-time president, apparently Karl Rove's preferred path to re-election. So, how did they attempt to do this? The address was, like most of Bush's speeches, very well crafted and well written. It addressed major concerns by stressing that we were making progress and more importantly, that the action in Iraq was an "essential victory" in the fight against terrorism. This last point was argued almost entirely from a rhetorical and logical point of view. He offered up very few "facts" to support this but rather used language and phrase construction to link Iraq and terrorism. He began the speech with a reference to 9/11, later he explicitly stated that terrorism depends on the support of dictators and more firmly established a connection when he framed the violent resistance in Iraq as acts of terrorism. Without making any mention of Osama bin-Laden and only sporadic references to Al-Queda, Bush sought to broaden the definition of terrorism so that it firmly includes Iraq, both pre- and post-Sadaam. Bush's olive branchlette to the United Nations and the global community as a whole also demonstrated the use of rhetoric and logic to make a persuasive appeal. In one of the most eloquent sections, he cast the resistance in Iraq as not simply anti-American but rather "Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world." Later he reinforced the universality of the threat by stating "We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization." In addition to appealing to a sense of duty, he also sought to enlist the support of other nations by implying a sense of obligation, "Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] and they should contribute to that success." The underlying message of the speech, as in most of Bush's addresses on foreign policy, was this is an on-going war that will require forbearance on the part of the American public. Not only does this give Bush space to breathe, it also reinforces Bush' image as a war-time president. If the war is on-going, Karl Rove must surmise, then Bush will continue to benefit from the support that Americans traditionally give presidents in times of crisis. But How Did He Do?? This speech illustrates Bush's strengths and his weaknesses. He has a crack communications team and great speechwriters. The speech reads very well even if it is short on "facts". Ironically, classical rhetorical scholars such as Aristotle would've applauded Bush's reliance on language and logic to make a case. The ancient hated facts. They firmly believed that facts could be biased or proven wrong and that arguments should be based on logical inferences. This was the dogma for millenia until rhetoricians in the mid to late 19th century began to advocate the primacy of empirical evidence and expert testimony over mere inference. On this basis, Bush fails to make the case. In general, polls indicate that Bush failed to change any minds here in America. But he didn't lose any of his existing support either. The rhetoric worked on one level but wasn't enough to put him over the ballpark fence. As an aside, the relative simplicity of the speech's language was a welcome change. While I worship Michael Gershon, Bush's primary speechwriter, as a writer, his flights of rhetorical fancy, while beautiful to read, have never suited Bush. The simpler phrases in this speech were more Bush's style and I hope they continue in this vein. The Monkey on His Back Even if Bush had given this speech two thousand years ago to the fact-hating orators of old, he still would've been given a middling score. His uninspired delivery and obvious discomfort with public speaking in general continue to haunt him. He had a few stumbles that flustered him for a split second and he lacks expression in his face and eyes that undercuts the powerful language that is written for him. The one exception to this was towards the end where he warmed up to the task of thanking our military and asking Americans for continued resolve. There he was warm, sincere, natural and quite effective. He truly does believe this and it shows. Whether his lack of warmth and feeling in the majority of the speech indicate nerves or that he doesn't really believe or care about what's he saying is an interesting question but one that is outside the purview of this essay. Final Conclusion and Lessons This was an acceptable but not exceptional effort. However, it does provide some powerful lessons for anyone who has to speak in public:
Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.  |
|