10:31 am (PST) January 30, 2002

How Did Bush Do? - 2002 State of the Union

Comments on rhetorical effectiveness

While not as dramatically anticipated as Bush's previous address to a joint session of Congress days after the September 11, attacks, the 2002 State of the Union address was nevertheless eagerly awaited as a test of how much Bush has truly evolved as a leader.

Pundits, political analysts, and the American public have all weighed in, giving the President high marks for his performance. Several polls indicate a vast majority of Americans approved of the policies espoused by Bush in the address and believe he did an excellent job.

What these polls don't tell us is why Bush was so effective. Surely, his current popularity did much to bolster the overall impression of his speech but communications experts will argue that how he presented himself and his ideas were also an important factor in Bush's effectiveness. For business professionals interested in improving their own communication skills and leadership abilities, a study of Bush's rhetorical effectiveness provides significant value.

To better understand Bush's success, this piece will examine some of the strengths and weaknesses in Bush's 2002 State of the Union from a communications perspective, offer suggestions as to how the speech could have been more effective and then briefly glean lessons that executives and managers can use to improve their own business communication.

What Bush Did Right

Content and Language

Bush entered the Capitol with a tremendous advantage, extraordinary popularity and a cause that has united American like no other since World War II. Bush wisely capitalized on this and turned it into one of the many strengths of his speech. He devoted roughly two thirds of his speech to the war on terrorism and homeland security. Using forceful words, he impressed upon Americans the importance of this battle and what it will mean for the future of the country. The most obvious example of this forceful language frequent was the frequent use of the word "evil." Made much of by the media, this was in all probability, a conscious decision by Bush to clearly delineate his belief that there are only two sides to this battle and, more important, make it easier to cast those who are not with us as enemies and justifiable targets for military action. Naming Iran, Iraq and North Korea was a bold move that could have backfired. Instead, Bush's framing of the war as essentially dualistic made the naming of the "others" a natural and necessary part of his description of the Administration's war efforts.

It is interesting to note that in spite of Bush's statements in the 2000 presidential debates that foreign policy must be conducted with humility, there was no humility in his phrasing. This was subtly but powerfully demonstrated in one sentence: "Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay." This specific reference to the controversial prison made it clear to critics, primarily the European Union, that Bush feels there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of regarding the treatment of these individuals. He later evinced America's willingness to proceed without multilateral support when he stated that:

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction…yet time is not on our side. We will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer.

This is not the diplomatic language that is usually used by presidents when dealing with international affairs and certainly not language that the international community is used to. According to Slate.com's roundup of the international press the day after the address, The international press was uniformly shocked at Bush's "escalation of rhetoric". But as they also noted, the address was for domestic consumption and domestic audiences reacted very favorably. A truism of the American psyche is that the public uniformly approves of forcefulness and purpose in their leaders even if they don't agree with the specific actions. (Note: these words could also have been crafted to highlight Bush's sense of urgency in order to make a case for military tribunals that have been hugely controversial, even here at home.)

After the war on terrorism, the most important thing on American's minds is the economy. As pundits have pointed out over and over again, Bush the Younger is intent on not repeating the mistakes of his father who enjoyed tremendous popularity after the Gulf War only to lose the presidency to Bill Clinton's laser focus on the economy ("It's the economy, stupid.") Accordingly, the next biggest chunk of the state of the union dealt with economic issues. Here Bush was treading in less friendly waters. Many of his proposals for economic stimulus and the budget are strongly opposed by the Democrats. Bush's answer to this dilemma was very crafty. By linking his divisive economic proposals to one universally popular theme, jobs, Bush was able to get a rhetorical lift. While specific legislation was greeted by predictable standing ovations by the Republicans and notable silence on the Democratic side of the aisle, every reference to "jobs" prompted both sides of the aisle to rise and applaud heartily making it appear as if Bush enjoyed bipartisan support on much more than he really did. According to a CBS News poll, 74% of Americans who watched the speech felt that Government will be able to work together as opposed to 62% of those who didn't watch the speech.

Bush's explicit emphasis on bipartisianship was also unprecedented and effective. Some of the most sustained applause in the Chamber occurred when Bush made special note of Democrats, most notably Ted Kennedy, who had worked on the education bill.

The other notable issue of content in the President's speech was Enron. The timeliness and sheer magnitude of the attention the company's collapse has been given by the media meant that the issue could not be ignored. Yet, the Bush adminstration's potentially damaging ties to Enron made this perhaps the trickiest element of the address. In this instance, Bush benefited from tradition. The State of the Union has evolved from a simple letter sent to Congress detailing, exactly that, the state of the union into the most important presidential address of the year which is the launching point for the president's themes and vision. Specificity is not required and in fact, presenting "laundry lists" of legislation is often viewed negatively. As Karen Hughes, Bush's Communications Director, pointed out the morning before the address that it would be inappropriate for Enron to be mentioned specifically in a speech such as the State of the Union. Bush successfully achieved this balancing act using two strategies. First, he clearly called for new corporate responsibility and stricter accounting standards. When all was said and done, this is what Americans wanted to hear more than condemnations of specific parties. Second, he wove this call seamlessly into a broader call for economic security in retirement simultaneously addressing the essential issues without giving it undue and potentially damaging prominence. This two-pronged approach was clearly effective. The CBS poll reported that 66% of Americans who watched the speech felt he didn't need to say more than he did.

Finally, much has been said of the presidential tradition of introducing specific individuals who exemplify the theme and vision of the speech. First attributed to Reagan, this custom is remarkably effective in bringing abstract values home. Without repeating what has already been said about this technique, it is interesting to note that Bush invited and singled out Doctor Sima Samar, Afghanistan's new minister of women's affairs as one of these individuals. This is a clear and brilliant appeal to women voters who are often at odds with the President. (It is also interesting that, with the exception of one truly oblique reference to the dignity of every life near the end of the speech, there was no mention of the abortion issue, a fixture in every State of the Union since Reagan.)

What Bush Could Have Done Better

Delivery

As President of the United States, Bush has access to the best minds and writers in the country as well as comprehensive polling data that gives him a unique knowledge of his audience and what they want to hear. What the office does not automatically confer upon its holders is charisma and presence. That he must develop on his own and it has been one of Bush's biggest challenges since entering national politics. Since September 11, he has developed tremendously in this regard with moments of rhetorical brilliance, e.g. the "bullhorn moment." His speech on September 20 to a joint session of Congress was the best he's given delivery wise and raised the bar. Initially, the beneficiary of low expectations, Bush is now judged by higher standards. In general he met those expectations. He was relaxed and confident and as mentioned above, his forceful delivery complemented his forceful language and was well received by listeners.

He also handled the constant interruptions for applause better than he has in the past. These ovations, while traditional and affirming for the unity of the nation wreak havoc with speeches. Stirring rhetoric must often build up to a crescendo to be truly effective. Constant "spontaneous" outbursts of applause disrupt the flow and momentum. Bush's September 20 speech suffered from this acutely. Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gearson's moving language lost much of the power that is only truly realized after reading a text of the speech.

In general, Bush's speeches have always read better than they sounded. He has problems "punching" his phrases and placing the correct intonation and emphasis on specific words to give the sentence the full impact. For example, in the first sentence of the speech, "As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger." Bush rushed into the second sentence compromising its tremendous impact. This is a great juxtaposition of language and received sustained applause. Yet, a meaningful pause before delivering the "kicker" would've heightened its impact into a truly great rhetorical moment.

Another problem with Bush's delivery of this speech was the inconsistency in tone. There were two Bushes on display that evening. One was the intense and focused Bush that we've seen since September 11. The other was the folksy, irreverent Bush that we got to know during the campaign. While both styles are effective on their own, they were glaringly discordant with each other in the same speech. Ironically, each "Bush" could've benefited from the other. Bush's strength and relative sternness is obviously sincere and appropriate to his topic but at times, he seems overly concerned with "dignity." The warmth and humor that the "other" Bush demonstrates would enhance this seriousness by making him more accessible. Likewise, the "folksy, humorous" Bush can sometimes seem flip and sarcastic and some of the decorum we see in the "serious" Bush would counterbalance this impression giving Bush the "gravitas" that he needs during these times.
Lessons Learned

From Bush's success and weaknesses, business communicators can see the value of:

1. Forcefulness and decisive language when leading through a crisis.
2. Co-opting your opponents by linking your agenda to theirs.
3. Dealing with controversial topics by addressing the underlying needs they prompt.
4. Maintaining a consistency of tone and balancing seriousness with warmth.

Talking Points
State of the Union - 2002

Strengths

• Bush use forceful and evocative language that clearly defined the stakes and the sides of the war
• He concentrated on what Americans wanted to hear, the war against terrorism and the economy.
• Through the constant references to jobs he forced to Democrats to visually endorse his economic policies.
• He successfully dealt with the "Enron" issue by dealing with the underlying issues of corporate responsibility and accounting standards and avoided "naming names." He also cleverly placed the issue in the context of his larger vision of security.
  

Weaknesses

• Bush's perennial problems of intonation and emphasis slightly compromised the effectiveness of the speech.
• The inconsistency of tone was jarring. A better balance of the two different Bushes, the stern commander and chief and the folksy, humorous guy next door, would result in a unique and warm signature style that would serve Bush well throughout his political career.

Click on the year for analysis of Bush's 2003 and 2004 State of the Unions.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.