-
Our Queen
June 2, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Profiles in Courage
March 28, 2012 | 24 comments
-
A Great and Wonderful Experiment
November 21, 2011 | 21 comments
-
While America Slept
February 9, 2010 | 89 comments
-
Victory is the Only Option
August 16, 2007 | 1 comment
The Nation's Pulse
A Return to Oratory
A Churchill exhibition in Manhattan reminds us of what’s missing in our politics.
I WAS NEVER A BIRD ON THE UNPINIONED WING,” the elderly Winston Churchill once told a young, aspiring politician. “You see, my boy, when I got up to speak, I always knew precisely where every noun and adjective would go, and how every piece of punctuation would bed into my speech. By contrast, the best parliamentary orators, like Lloyd George, F.E. Smith, or even that shit Aneurin Bevan, their phrases were dictated by some inner God within.”
Why is the inner God within so totally absent from today’s political oratory? Why does the prospect of listening to either candidate in this coming presidential election, let alone both of them, seem so unedifying to so many Americans? The standard of our political discourse is presently as low as at any time in living memory; so where have all the orators gone?
The issues are as pressing and dramatic as ever. The GDP of the United States will soon be overtaken by that of China—possibly even within the term of the next president. The Iranians are building a nuclear bomb and publicly threatening to use it against Israel. Today’s recession has been longer than any since the Great Depression. Statesmen of an earlier era of public speaking would be able to fashion from these crises a living body of words that would have stiffened the electorate’s sinews and summoned up its blood.
Yet in the last State of the Union address, this was all President Obama was able to say: “Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” To imagine how a Churchill or a Frederick Douglass or a Ronald Reagan would have ended that sentence after the comma, with wit or fireworks or evisceration, is to appreciate the dearth of genius in modern political oratory.
Once touted as a rhetorician in the mold of JFK, President Obama has been a sore disappointment oratorically. The fluency seems to come only when he’s seeking votes, rather than attempting to inspire the nation. His inaugural address, Cairo speech, Nobel acceptance speech, and four State of the Unions ought each to have throbbed with phrases that speak to the ages, yet can you quote even a single sentence from any of them? By contrast, consider the quotable lines that simply flooded from a single speech of JFK’s, his inaugural: “Let the word go forth… that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” “Let every nation know… that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” “All this will not be finished in the first 100 days…” And so on and so thrillingly on.
In a sense, it’s our own fault. We let our politicians get away with their appalling clichés, truisms, cringemaking personal references, and unfunny jokes by awarding them with ecstatic applause because they are celebrities who have turned up to speak. President Obama’s utterly banal commencement address to Barnard College recently—“Never forget that the most important example a young girl will ever follow is that of her parent.” “I wanted to do my part to shape a better world.” “We look forward, not back.”—was interrupted by applause (including whoops and highpitched shrieks) no fewer than 36 times, and by respectful laughter 22 times. Small wonder that politicians think they can say anything, however cringemakingly mawkish. After the shootings in Tucson and the tragic murder of a 9-year-old girl there, Obama thought it fit to say: “If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today.”
By a sad lack of contrast, the self-laceration inflicted by the Republican Party in its 27 presidential primary debates between May 2011 and March 2012 proved the almost total paucity of great oratory on its side of the aisle too. Admittedly, there is little opportunity to show Churchillian rhetorical skills when given only 30 seconds for a rebuttal, let alone five seconds to say “yes” or “no” to a reporter’s question. Yet even when Mitt Romney had the podium entirely to himself for his recent commencement address at Liberty University, he still came out with remarks such as “Among the things in life that can be put off, being there when it matters most isn’t one of them,” and “It is not a matter of what we are asking of life, but rather what life is asking of us.” Swap “life” for “country,” and you’ve got what JFK said in his inaugural address, except that President Kennedy said it half a century ago, and better.
There is a real possibility that the real issues at stake in these elections—nothing less than a great clash between the Keynesian and Hayekian economic philosophies—will be fought out in a pedestrian and occasionally toe-curlingly embarrassing Vernacular that will fall desperately below the level of events, while the media convinces itself that only a candidate’s gaffes can be considered newsworthy.
HOW WONDERFULLY REFRESHING and timely, therefore, that the Morgan Library in New York is putting on an exhibition of the political writings and speeches of perhaps the greatest orator of the 20th century. Between June 8 and September 23, it is hosting “Churchill: The Power of Words,” which I believe to be the single most impressive collection of Churchilliana to arrive in America since Churchill himself left her shores for the last time in 1961. Dozens of original documents, artifacts, and recordings relating to his mastery over the spoken and written word underline how it was possible for Churchill, by the use of language alone, to warn the world of the rise of Nazism and subsequently to steel it to the sacrifices needed for victory.
You can see the handwritten notes of his speech from—eerily enough—September 11, 1940, delivered during the London Blitz, about how Adolf Hitler “hopes by killing large numbers of civilians, and women and children, that he will terrorize and cow the people of this mighty imperial city.… Little does he know the spirit of the British nation.” There are Churchill’s letters to his Brooklyn-born mother about fighting in Afghanistan, a letter from his doctor after he was run over on Fifth Avenue (“the postaccident convalescence necessitates the use of alcoholic spirits especially at mealtimes”), the Iron Curtain speech that warned against Communism, and the grant of U.S. citizenship signed by JFK, among other fascinating documents.
They show that although Churchill might not have spoken “on the unpinioned wing,” but rather with the notes carefully curated at Churchill College, Cambridge, and now displayed at the Morgan, he most certainly did have “the inner God within” when he growled his spirit of defiance against Fascists and Stalinists alike. Nor did his power of words require warfare and hostility for them to enthuse and inspire; they worked in peacetime too. Never having employed a speechwriter, Churchill spoke to his audience words that his listeners therefore knew came unalloyed and unaltered directly from his heart. Our modern politicians should try it sometime. And he didn’t even have a teleprompter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew Roberts
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/a-return-to-oratory
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Happy Fourth
- The Lehrman Standard
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MelvinNC| 7.10.12 @ 7:45AM
Society has been asking itself that same question since Churchill. Winston Churchill rallied England and to some respects what was left of the free world, no thanks to Neville Chamberlain, to stand up to Adolph Hitler and Nazism, but shortly after the war resoundingly sent Mr. Churchill packing, only to embrace socialism.
The English people gave up their self-respect and deep conviction with promissory notes from English socialist politicians.
The same can also be applied here. Americans are giving up their sense of self reliance, individuality, and the rule of law, to get the free stuff. But anyone worth their own salt knows full well that when dealing with double dealing politicians and the government that nothing is ever free. Their is always a cost and a payment to the devil.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:14AM
Gee, wouldn't "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!" leave a lot of dead air in a thirty second debate response?
RWR spoke plainly and well, yet communicated his message very well. Today, all the politicians listen to the consultants who cannot stop repeating the mantra, "got to win the independents..." "got to work the middle..." which leaves no room for serious or stirring inspirational speech.
Scott Walker in Wisconsin does a lot of plain speaking; he also does exactly what he says he will, and by gum, he sticks to his principles!
Gee, maybe there's a lesson in there.
Paging the Republican Party!
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 4:31PM
"The GDP of the United States will soon be overtaken by that of China—possibly even within the term of the next president."
The white man is descending, the yellow man is ascending.
What to do?: learn to read and write Chinese.
jaytrain| 7.10.12 @ 8:43AM
Time was oratory and its handmaiden rhetoric were taught in the schools . A feller would have his three years of Latin and get in a little In Catalinem . And if dead languages didn't float your boat a taste of the Bard in Richard III or , darest I say it, Julius Caesar might persude you as to the powers of persuasion .And if you had dulled your powers of imagination , Leni Reifenstal could show you the real deal , up close and personal . But , alas , no more !! . However we do now know that Alice has two mommies living in the yellow house on down green mango street . And we are so much the better for that . Aren't we ??
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:18AM
jay,
What does Hitler's film maker and photographer have to do with oratory?
That doesn't make any sense...
Occam's Tool| 7.10.12 @ 12:44PM
DTOM: Leni Reifenstahl did the best filmed images of Adolf Hitler speaking to crowds ever done.
She was a genius. A scumbag and a cunt, yes, but a genius.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 1:19PM
So we are going to talk about whether Hitler was an orator now?
I say orator no - polemicist yes.
I have always found public speaking very easy when I knew what I wanted to say and believed in it. When I am not sure of my message and didn't believe in it?
Let's just say "Hindenburg, May 6, 1937."
Ever wonder why Obama's off the cuff remarks are so halting? He's trying to convert what he thinks into something that real Americans won't come over the table at him for. He has to filter his every thought! If he ever spoke his mind, he'd be impeached, even by Democrats. Or he is just a blithering idiot that cannot get the words out...
DTOM
Occam's Tool| 7.10.12 @ 2:39PM
Hitler did have the ability to captivate his audience. When printed, not read, his speeches are banal. Churchill's speeches, printed AND read, were at times immortal. I don't know how I would go on this, DTOM. You raise a good point.
But Leni is still as I described her.
Frank Natoli| 7.10.12 @ 5:06PM
I wish you hadn't used the s-word and c-word. It degrades the conversation. Riefenstahl was brilliant in the service of what later proved to be the 2nd most consummate evil in the history of mankind, 1st being any incarnation of Communism.
How do you explain how it's perfectly acceptable to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt but not one of Adolf Hitler?
Communism killed on an industrial scale in a way that made National Socialists look like amateurs. But Cameron Diaz sported a "Shining Path" pocketbook in Peru until Peruvians told her to go ef herself.
Adolf Hitler was probably the most effective orator of all time, perhaps with the exception of one religious figure whom I will not mention. Read Ron Rosenbaum's "Understanding Hitler". Pay close attention to his description of a photo taken in München circa 1920, with a forlorn figure standing in the crowd, who ultimately used his oratory, and his oratory alone, to lead a movement that resulted in the death of twenty plus million people. Pure evil. Pure oratory.
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 6:32PM
Alas, TLP and Mr. Tool have the "gift" of degrading the conversation here. They say far more about themselves than they do the subject at hand.
It is unlikely he knows enough about Riefenstahl to be able to call her a c*nt. He may hold an MD, but an educated man he is not.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 6:34PM
Okay, say Communism was worse than Nazism and Mussolinism, Tojoism.
And say Stalin was the worst person, ever.
One could also make a case the Germans are the worst people, ever.
Frank Natoli| 7.11.12 @ 3:11PM
Really? If "one" could, I would like to see you try.
At the end of World War II, Douglas MacArthur, who had the ultimate revenge upon the general who embarrassed him in the early stages of the war, not only seeing that that general was executed as a war criminal but also ignoring the pleas of the general's wife that the general be shot as a soldier and not hanged as an ordinary criminal, opined that the Japanese were arguably faithful to their code of bushido [though that didn't cut any slack for Homma], whereas the Germans "betrayed Western Civilization".
Now I suppose you might use that in support of your assertion, but that would be a trifle racist, nicht wahr?
We're all veterans of the History Channel, back when it actually showed history, as opposed to "Ice Truckers", best rifle, best fighter plane, best warship, so let's hear your rationale for "worst people".
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 4:36PM
"RWR spoke plainly and well, yet communicated his message very well."
Yes, but it was the GOP's responsibility to discover a first-rate successor to Reagan-- however they were overconfident and settled on Bush-- and then compounded its error by choosing his son Dubya eight years later!
Incredible but true.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 4:43PM
Rewritten:
Yes, but it was the GOP's responsibility to discover a first-rate successor to Reagan-- however they were overconfident and settled on Bush and then compounded their error by choosing his son Dubya eight years later!
With all the aces, the top-drawer people, in America, you wanted Bushes, Dole and McCain?? Was their ordinariness, their un-Churcillism, what appealed to you? Were they Everymen to you?
In the Land of Milk and Honey you were drinking dirty water.
Frank Natoli| 7.10.12 @ 10:39AM
The decline in oratory is a symptom but not itself the disease.
Churchill's oratory was legendary for decades before the event that proved his oratory right and everyone else's wrong, the German invasion of Belgium and Holland in May 1940, which elevated him to first national and then legendary leadership. Most importantly, he spoke for his own beliefs and never pandered.
The same for Reagan. He graciously accepted the Republican establishment's insistence on staying with Gerald Ford in 1976, thus ushering in Jimmy Carter. But that set the stage for Reagan to make the leap from the media's portrayal of him as an elderly extremist to the true conservative savior of a terribly faltering U.S. He too spoke for his own beliefs and never pandered. Like Churchill, his oratory was extraordinary, but again it was the message that drove the ultimate success.
On a nightly basis on talk radio, Mark Levin mercilessly and with complete justification pummels the apparent Republican candidate for failing to get the conservative message out, what Roberts refers to as the "Hayekian economic philosophy". It's always dangerous to play mind reader, but the evidence is that the candidate simply doesn't believe in the philosophy, and instead does his best to pander to what he believes is an aggregate majority of the electorate. There is no oratory that can make such pandering respectable.
P.S.: "Storm of War" was first class and impossible to put down. Almost as good as Hastings' "Inferno"!
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 6:39PM
But that set the stage for Reagan to make the leap from the media's portrayal of him as an elderly extremist to the true conservative savior of a terribly faltering U.S."
YES, however that was a generation ago! C'mon Natoli, you got a lucky break with Reagan yet you couldn't follow up on it; you couldn't find a successor to Reagan, so you run empty suit after empty suit, expecting us to vote for the suit without any demonstrable prospect for the hack to succeed.
Put up or shut up, either locate a Churchill-type in America who is willing to run for POTUS, or forget it.
Frank Natoli| 7.10.12 @ 7:32PM
As good as Reagan was, IMHO the greatest president in living memory, what you choose to call a "lucky break", he gave us GHWB, which regrettably "explains" 1988 and 1992. I offer no defense for Dole or for GWB, but in 2008 Fred Thompson was a good man, well spoken, who would have done us very, very well. And in 2012 I would have been much happier with Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum than this pick-an-issue-I've-supported-both-sides guy.
Al Adab| 7.10.12 @ 11:36AM
Which politicos were our last great orators? Everett Dirksen probably, Gen. McArthur perhaps. Were there others who rose to those heights? Maybe its simply a function of speech writers who water down the message instead of providing inspiring passages.
sotto voce| 7.10.12 @ 4:55PM
Let's not forget Martin Luther King. His "I Have a Dream" speech expressed a timeless vision in timeless and stirring phrases.
Frank Natoli| 7.10.12 @ 5:09PM
Quite correct, and also ignored by all his ostensible disciples. The very last thing any of them really want is for someone to be judged without respect to the color of his skin.
Al Adab| 7.10.12 @ 5:50PM
True enough. If one were to quote the "content of their character" phrase to The Left of today, one would be branded "racist". A good pick Sotto, any others?
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.10.12 @ 6:42PM
"Let's not forget Martin Luther King. His "I Have a Dream" speech expressed a timeless vision in timeless and stirring phrases."
But back then the Right didn't have much use for MLK; and didn't like his extramarital activities. Now he is the In Thing.
Al Adab| 7.10.12 @ 7:25PM
The "right" as you put it, opposed MLK for his demand of federal action in what was a state issue. He demanded and eventually got a massive extension of federal power into the private sector. In some ways, Detroit is part of his legacy as well.
cornell| 7.10.12 @ 11:48AM
Thx for this article, Andrew, and for your superb book "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900". I enjoy my well-worn copy.
Petronius| 7.10.12 @ 12:04PM
Well it's like, you know, uh,?
If you mention vocabulary, people pull out their iwhatever. Why speak if none listen? Today they text in their shortkey vulgates.
But examine the real problem: fraud. Political candidates don't mean one word of what they say unless their audience is hand picked and on board already. The roobs in the streets are to be fooled and screwed after the election. No official will ever do their bidding. Those people don't have any money. They're at the wrong end of the political revenue stream just by having their earnings plundered with taxation. You only get your way on the other end, either as a dependent, or bag man for those buying favors and influence. Hence the old joke. How do you tell when a politician lies? His lips move. Not that it matters anymore. That ancient Roman Senator was right when he said, "Few men desire true Freedom. Most wish only for a just master."
sotto voce| 7.10.12 @ 5:24PM
Human nature hasn't changed; politicians have been mendacious since the beginning of civilization. It's up to us poor rubes to make sure their deeds match their words, whatever the words may be. I agree the impoverishment of language is tragic to anyone who loves words, but there is an upside: It's harder to pettifog the folks with a paltry vocabulary. We still have months to go until November and even some Democrats are getting impatient with Obama's hackneyed, tired talking points and droning drivel. On the other hand, it would be wonderful if Romney could somehow infuse his speeches with passion, righteous outrage, humor and optimism. Soaring oratory is thrilling, but in our sadly diminished day and age plain-spoken, heartfelt commonsense would suffice.
Petronius| 7.10.12 @ 7:34PM
Not so. It's all too easy when words have been redefined so often that they no longer have any absolute meaning. And the nihilistic liberals are experts at it. Nobody can pin them down on anything. The meaning of any given word to Us will always be redefined as something else by them in order to control the narrative and the debate. They'll tell you. Truth does not exist. There is only what they want and what they'll do to get it. And we are saddled with three lost generations graduated by liberal schools who have been force fed their definitions and lies. Mitt and his campaign consultants could also care less.
JD| 7.10.12 @ 12:25PM
We still have great orators. The media tells us that Obama is the greatest ever!
And he truly is - though only because he stands on the shoulders of Democratic giants who came before him. His party has spent decades breaking down words, robbing them of their meanings, and redefining them in fascist splendor. Thanks to their continuing redefinitions, simply uttering the words "fair share" and "progress" in the same speech renders one the greatest orator of all time! No one who lived in an era when words had their stodgy, old "meaningful" meanings could possibly compare; the rich language of progressive glory simply wasn't available to them!
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 12:33PM
None of that makes Obama a great orator.
He's not. Not even a little. Would an orator have to use the stealth middle finger gesture? Not likely.
Obama can read and slide into idiomatic speech casually. But he is NO orator.
The emperor is stark naked, stark, stark, stark!
JD| 7.10.12 @ 4:07PM
It doesn't take a great orator to describe sarcasm flying over your head.
Dave Williams| 7.10.12 @ 12:42PM
As a professor, I am in daily contact with 18-year olds, and the vast majority of them deal with English, especially written English, as if it were a foreign language. Lazy, stupid, and limited by today's all-trash-all-the-time culture, they will eventually prove themselves incapable of self-governance...which is just what King Zero and his fascist army are counting on. If you wish to see how steep our decline as a nation has been, go to the library and dig up some letters written by ordinary folks during the Civil War. Sad, sad, sad.....
Frank Natoli| 7.10.12 @ 4:27PM
It's not just 18 year olds. It's the entire culture, even "authors" who you'd think would be best versed in the language. Read anything written by an American, then read anything written by a Brit, the difference is night and day. Andrew Roberts "Storm of War", just the language, never mind the subject or the facts, makes everything you read that's written here sound like a kindergarten kid wrote it. Even more so with Max Hastings.
You mentioned writings from the Civil War. Pick up a copy of Douglas Southall Freeman's bio of Robert E. Lee or "Lee's Lieutenants". The care Southall Freeman put into the language sounds like it's from another planet.
Victor Davis Hanson had a similar thought in one of his articles a few months ago.
Occam's Tool| 7.10.12 @ 12:55PM
Dave:
Well, at least we can see why you believe there is no G-d...:-)
(If I had your job, I'd despair, too.) However, if you had had me as a student, a guy who was making dual language puns in Latin at age 15, you might have had hope.
Let me tell you about what happened then...my English teacher in sophomore year in high school had passed around some sentences for us to look at, for a reason I now forget. One of them was, "Mortimer loved his sailing lessons." I went up to him after class and said, "nice wordplay, Dr. Loveall."
He said, "what word play?"
I replied, "you know, 'Mort-i-mer. Dead in the sea.' What the name means. Pretty funny, boss."
I cannot imagine what he was thinking as I skipped off to my next class. But I do know my son was describing the moon as a "crescent" at age 4, and has just scored a 99% on his California Achievement Test, second grade. The blessed child also proudly claimed that he was a "capitalist" at age 3, and also, at age 3, when asked why he was feeding gold coins to his toy shark, replied, "sharks always swim better with money in their mouths!" (That last is for RCV)
He's 8, now. Hang in there for 10 more years, Dave...
VDAVIDIUK| 7.10.12 @ 1:00PM
I think the greatest difference in oratory has been the politicization of speeches, rather that patriotism or rationalism as was previously the case. In the past, statesmen could deliver oratory that was both patriotic and rational, occasionally exhorting, cajoling and berating the people, and the speech would be viewed through the lens of cultural betterment. Now, politicians deliver speeches that only advance political ideas or agendas. They avoid any topic, words, or rhetorical flourishes that may not score well in the polls.
Who Knows?| 7.10.12 @ 1:15PM
Author, author!
Someone writes the speeches. Churchill was certainly the exceptional politician who could write his own speeches. Not only was he a masterly writer, but he had firm and right convictions.
There is no excuse for any politician of high status, like a president, to produce humdrum drivel. Their task is to hire the best writers, and give them the job of creating speeches.
A president can just give an outline of what he wants to say. Then he can take the relevant opinions into account, and CHOOSE what to read.
In Romney’s case, I have no doubt that he has most of the right inclinations and principles, so why doesn’t he use his business expertise and HIRE the best writers?
Obama, happily, is hubris personified, in spades. How ironic!
He’s a lawyer, who thinks he’s the best. And everyone knows it is fatal for a lawyer or a doctor to handle his own case.
Yes---there’s no excuse for less than inspirational rhetoric.
Romney should offer a reward for the best speech about Obamacare, say. And, surely someone would “WIN”, as would Mitt, and the GOP.
Petronius| 7.10.12 @ 2:02PM
WK
That doesn't require a speech. All Romney has to say to the average voter is, "when you're broke, starving, and wind up in the ER after paying your Obamacare premium tax penalty, the ex-postal supervisor at the admission desk will tell you that Dr. Obama only prescribes enemas for people like you."
CJW| 7.10.12 @ 4:37PM
O is a lousy speaker because he has nothing to say. He is an empty suit that can read from the telepromter like an actor. Without a written script he is like most of his rich Hollywood pals. A zero.