Bush's Second Inaugural - How'd He Do?

(LOS ANGELES) January 20, 2005 – 9:47 pm (PST)

Last week, I was interviewed by an Australian radio station about an article I’d written on Bush’s inaugural address. Whenever I listen to Bush speak, I told the listeners, I’m usually on the edge of my seat waiting for some horrible gaffe while simultaneously hoping for him to finally nail one, to finally give a great speech. Then, I laid out what I felt he needed to do to make his second inaugural a success. He needed to give a speech that was: 1) simple, 2) non-partisan, and 3) optimistic.

I am happy to report this Inaugural night that the speech I heard our newly authorized President give this morning was all three of these things. I am also sad to report that it wasn’t a success.

Why the disconnect? Before we get into that, let’s talk about what went right. First of all, it was simple. It had one theme that was clear and strong, freedom (if you were counting, there were over forty references to “freedom” and “liberty” in the speech). More important, it used simple words and phrases. As I stated many times before, Bush’s speechwriter, Michael Gerson, tends to write grandiloquent passages that don’t suit Bush’s folksy appeal. This speech was different. Gerson’s words truly embodied Bush’s style. This speech was Bush. As Michael Beschloss insightfully noted in his commentary on ABC News this morning, you only had to listen to this speech to get a true understanding of who Bush was as a man and as a president.

The speech was also non-partisan. It was conceptual, visionary and spoke of what American could do. Not the Republican-led Congress nor the red states nor the conservative court, but America as one nation. The inaugural is supposed to fly above “politics” and it did.

Ultimately, it was optimistic. There was no talk of the quagmire in Iraq or the stop-and-go economy. It was all about what American is and what it can do.

Bush followed my prescription for success exactly. And indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the speech, reaction was generally positive. Strong, clear, and confident were the words most pundits used to describe it. So what’s my problem? Bush’s overall performance was good but it could have been so much more.

Rhetorically speaking, Bush is a man of missed opportunities. Bush has never hit a home run with a presidential address in spite of the fact that he’s had more than his share of the two requirements for a great rhetorical moment: a great event (9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and a great speech. What keeps Bush from attaining these oratorical heights? Quite simply, it’s his flawed delivery. And this inaugural was a prime example of “how it was said” being truly more important that “what was said.”

As I’ve written many times in previous articles, Bush has a very odd intonation pattern. Most of us naturally emphasize certain words and phrases by raising or lowering our pitch. We also pause before important ideas and speak more slowly when we want our audience to really understand something. It’s these variations that give the words we speak real meaning and impact. Many people, when giving speeches, don’t intonate at all and are accused of being “monotone”. Bush is not exactly monotone but he emphasizes the wrong words, rushes through sentences, pauses too long with others and generally butchers the finely wrought words his speechwriters give him. His delivery strips them of all their power. During this address, there was one camera shot of Bush from behind and above which clearly showed the transcript he was reading from. You could see that he (or someone) had underlined words and phrases throughout, a little trick I also tell my clients to use to help them remember which words to emphasize and when they need to pause. Bush clearly understands the need for proper intonation. He simply fails in the execution, disastrously so.

Why harp so much on Bush’s oratorical failings? He’s good enough to get elected, right? Yes, he is just good enough to get by but the demands of the inaugural, especially this inaugural, require more than passable speaking skills.

There are many methods of persuasion available to a speaker. Aristotle narrowed it down to three: 1) Ethos, or credibility, something that Bush should have as President but doesn’t because of the division caused by his policies. 2) Logos, or logic, which doesn’t suit the visionary and idealistic tone of an inaugural, and 3) Pathos, or emotion, which should have been Bush’s chief tool for making his case.

In speechmaking, emotion is most strongly conveyed in delivery. Bush had to make the audience believe that he really felt what he was saying and not just reading a script. Rationally, we know he does believe in these ideas. His actions during the last four years are completely consistent with the words he spoke this morning. But at the gut level, we are strangely unconvinced and uninspired because of his lack of delivery skills. To understand the power of truly great delivery, you need only listen to any of Churchill’s addresses (you can listen to MP3 files of several of his speeches at The History Channel’s Speech Archive) or for a more modern example, the speech by President Reagan after the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. Don’t be surprised if you feel chills. This is what great delivery can do. And it’s what Bush has never done.

I can only assume the President of the United States has access to the best public speaking coaches in the world. Why they can’t help Bush with something that’s pretty easy and would add so much, I will never know. I do know that I will probably continue to watch Bush speak with a feeling of sadness for all the great stirring, inspirational rhetorical moments that we’ll never know.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.