The man of words

Dominic Sandbrook

Published 11 December 2008

Barack Obama is certain to be remembered as one of the great political speakers of our time. But the true test of his rhetorical talents will be how he adjusts to the challenges of being in power

The man of words

The new tuxedo has been ordered, the balls are on schedule, and all that Barack Obama needs now is the speech. The largest crowd for a presidential inauguration in history is expected to descend on Washington on 20 January for the new president's swearing-in, and already the Georgetown gossips are speculating about his inaugural address.

Never perhaps has the bar been set higher, because, as his Republican opponents put it, Obama is above all a "person of words". His rise to power began with words, when he addressed the Democratic National Convention as a mere senatorial aspirant four years ago, and his extraordinary facility with the spoken word became one of the most striking features of his long march to the presidency. After the election, the New Yorker literary critic James Wood even published a close reading of his victory speech in Chicago, tracing the allusions to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, and exploring his use of history, his fondness for repetition, and the "plain but musical" flow of his language.

A vague reliance on hope and history will not impress viewers terrified they are going to lose their jobs

Although the tradition of high-flown political oratory has rather withered in Britain since the great days of Gladstone and Churchill, American audiences expect more from their leaders. While they had John F Kennedy summoning a generation to greatness, we had Harold Wilson talking about the pound in your pocket. And no British speaker of the past three decades, not even the faux-populist Tony Blair, comes close to matching Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, with their mastery of the misty eye and the trembling lip, their vocabulary of soaring skies and open horizons, their love of the telling anecdote and the rousing climax.

None of these men, of course, wrote his speeches entirely unassisted. Kennedy's inaugural address was the work of his courtier Ted Sorensen. Reagan's, a classic example of American patriotic populism, was written by Ken Khachigian, a veteran of the Nixon administration. And Obama, too, has not just a speechwriter but an entire team of wordsmiths, all throwing out ideas as though drafting an episode of a sitcom - although his chief writer, 27-year-old Jon Favreau, loyally claims that telling Obama what to say is about as useful as telling the baseball legend Ted Williams how to hit a home run.

It is not difficult to detect the source of Obama's rhetorical power. As a communicator, he has certain natural advantages - height, good looks, a deep voice, a preternatural sense of calm and control, a nice slow pace and ear for rhythm - but he also draws on the almost musical traditions of religious preachers. And, like his hero Martin Luther King, to whose speeches he often alludes, he allows his voice to rise and fall with the cadences and repetitions of his text, so that the speech becomes a song, playing with our expectations and seducing the ear.

The odd thing about the inaugural address, though, is that Obama has already given it hundreds of times. Inaugural addresses inevitably emphasise new hopes and unconquered horizons, historical roots and optimistic dreams - which is exactly what Obama has been doing since his national debut. It would be child's play for him to stand up and, in his rich, rousing voice, give us more of the same.

However, it would also be a bit of a disappointment. When you have heard a few inaugural addresses, they start to blur into one gigantic patriotic cliché, rather as if you were drowning in a sea of syrup. On the page, they generally read very poorly - and in truth, Obama's speeches are a lot less impressive as black type on white paper than as music floating through the winter air. It would be a shame if the most important speech of his life were to end up as just another puddle of sludge.

This only emphasises the great challenge for Obama the orator. Audiences will tolerate bland pieties about the American dream from presidential candidates, but they expect something rather different from their chief executive. Taking office against the backdrop of the worst economic crisis for 80 years, Obama will almost certainly bring more bad news than good during his time in office. If, in a few months, he has to announce another huge government bailout, or appeal for calm as the financial system implodes further, he will have to do a lot better than "Yes we can".

The fascinating thing, therefore - and the true test of Obama's rhetorical talents - will be to see how he adjusts to the new challenge of holding and wielding power. The soaring rhythms of the religious tradition are not well suited to televised fireside chats, and a vague reliance on hope and history will not impress viewers terrified they are going to lose their jobs. And while making great speeches in opposition to George W Bush and John McCain is one thing, making great speeches while announcing terrible economic news is quite another.

Nobody should doubt that Obama has the potential to become one of the finest political speakers of modern times. But only in four years' time will we know for sure whether he deserves to be ranked beside Lincoln and King, men of words whose greatest triumphs came amid the most dreadful adversity.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

17 comments from readers

writeon
11 December 2008 at 13:12

Let's think about this for a moment. Is Obama really that good with words? Obama is fortunate that he's following Bush, who in contrast to Obama could never be called a great public speaker. McCain wasn't much cop either was he? So, compared to these duds, Obama is impressive.

Bush on the other hand whilst he doesn't cut it in big, set piece speeches before crowds, gets better the smaller the audience. He appears to prefer small settings where his personality and charm work wonders for him.

Obama in complete contrast relishes the atmosphere when he's addressing a vast crowd. It's like he's been studying Dr. King, Kennedy, Reagan, Thatchrer, Clinton and Lincoln his entire life. This kind oratory, this rhetorical style, this skill, goes down well in America. There churches are full of preachers with real style, especially in the Black tradition. They really rock. We, in Europe, however, have learnt the hard way to mistrust this kind of open appeal to our emotions, nationalism and mythology. Not so in the USA these signals still push the right buttons.

But take Obama down from the pedastal and the adoring crowds, put him in a debate situation with McCain answering questions, and he's far less impressive. My teenage daughter thought he was evasive, tricky and imprecise, and she couldn't remember a single things he'd said afterwards.

He's not bad in debates, but far from outstanding. Calming things down even further, in interviews he doesn't really cut it, maybe he'll get better over time.

In a way he's very Blair-like. Blair always gave fantastic speeches at conference, but what about the real substantive content, the politics, the next day did anyone remember more than a couple of words?

I have to admit that I'm already bored stiff with Obama's style of oratory. I think he's acting. I've heard a rumour that he's planning a speech in Cairo, reaching out to the Arab world anew. But there has to be more than just words. I'm dreading it already.

jaybs
11 December 2008 at 18:43

President Elect Barack Obama is a superb orator, he clearly works well with Jon Favreau a very talented young writer. I disagree strongly I found Blair a good orator as he was always too false.

Lets give Obama an opportunity and lets see in four or eight years time is he goes down in history with his skills, I believe he will.,

BegbiesEvilTwin
11 December 2008 at 19:09

I wish the editor would do something about all this Obama erotica. He's done fuck all so far yet the NS has put him on more front pages than Hello did of Diana.

And while you're at it get Ziauddin Sardar back. The NS needs liberal intellectuals who can act as an effective interlocutors between Islam and the West. A genuine delight to read too.

BegbiesEvilTwin
11 December 2008 at 19:13

jaybs: Yup. Obama is an outstanding orator and Blair was terribly false.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 10:20

What I thinks important is that we don't allow ourselves to be simply carried away by Obama's or any other politicians oratory, rhetoric or verbal style. In Europe of all places, surely we've learnt from recent history how dangerous this can be? We need to remain critical and level-headed, especially journalists and influential people.

But isn't the point of political rhetoric, like the language of advertising, precisely to do the opposite of informing us, to undermine our critical faculties and common sense, and make us, "believe" in things that are often the opposite of what's in our best interests?

Modern political rhetoric sucks the meaning out of words, distorts and often reverses their true meaning. One obvious example is the use of the word "reform" to describe blatant cuts in living standards, rights, and benefits.

Most people believe that Obama has said or promissed to withdraw all the American troops from Iraq. This is "true" but with modifications. In fact he has stated his intention, under the right circumstances, to end the war in Iraq, whatever that really means, and withdraw combat troops from Iraq. A residual force, of perhaps 50,000, non-combat troops will remain in Iraq for perhaps decades to provide security, fight terrorists and protect US civilians. The massive, fort/embassy in the centre of Baghdad, which effectively controls the city, is going to be abandoned and neither are the enduring military bases.

Obama is also perceived to be the anit-war candidate. He isn't. He is the anti-dumb-war candidate. He isn't against going to war in Afghanistan for example, or probably attacking Pakistan if need be.

So there's a profound disconnect between the words, the perception, the impression, and cold, harsh, reality. Obama is a master political salesman, but surely we need to look beyond and underneath the surface gloss and try, against the odds, to examine the real meaning, substance and consequences of his politics?

Carl Jones
13 December 2008 at 13:09

Remember Joe biden`s comments about Obama being tested by a NEW crisis in the first few months of his presidency? Well, US defence secretary Robert Gates has just warned world leaders (who ever they may be), not to test Obama in the first few months of his presidency.LOL

swatantra nandanwar
13 December 2008 at 17:35

Obama has got a lot going for him. His ortaory is very much on the based on the cadences of Martin Luther King, but he should beware that he does not stray too much into the evangelical mode of the religiosos of the the Black Church. Theirs is a language of hyberbole and what the Americans need is some practical solution: not words but deeds, not words but substance, not of the world to come, but the world as it is today.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 20:16

here's a simple test for Obama the great orator. He's supposed to be Black, yet he's nowhere near as black as my first wife, who was from Nigeria and the most beautiful, jet-black, Venus, I'd ever seen.

Will Obama, the Obama who was perhaps even born in Kenya, give as much time and attention to the problems of black Africa as he will to Israel? How come such a little coutry receives so much attention from him compared to all of Africa? Why, considering how many "African Americans" there are, is Africa so low on Obama's list of priorities? When will he visit the Congo and try to solve the terrible civil-war going on there? How many black people have died there over the last decade or so? Two million? Four million? Six million? So many people, so much suffering, so much wasted potential, so little interest from the "African Americans" why? And why not from Obama? Stop the words. Stop the speeches. Stop the empty, easy, phrases; and start on the affermative action instead! Remember the Congo!

writeon
14 December 2008 at 10:02

Instead of worshipping Obama as a Messiah and drooling over his every golden utterance, how about sending someone to Chicago to look at how he rose up the greasy political pole in that extremely corrupt political city?

Even a superficial examination of how exactly an unknown black kid without many connections and no money, the two primarly requirements for success, moved up so quickly and seemingly effortlessly in the snakepit of Chicago politics, is both extremely "interesting" and instructive. Especially who financed his meteor like career and what he had to do to prove his loyalty to his backers.

andrewinberlin
14 December 2008 at 19:58

actually his sing song rhythm is exactly what I missed when he came to Berlin - it was all rather at the same pitch and volume for 40 minutes, and I remarked to a successful preacher friend of mine who listened to him with me, that I hope this will mellow and improve with time - there were none of the sudden changes in volume preceeding a new or more serious thought or punchline. Glad he's there though, and glad I was there to see him in Berlin before it all happened.

writeon
15 December 2008 at 09:38

A man of words, I wonder? Surely, the main question is, is Obama a man of his word, or just another politician?

BegbiesEvilTwin
16 December 2008 at 01:57

If Obama's rhetoric doesn't reflect his actions he's merely

pissing in the wind.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 13:47

The thing about political oratory is that, for it to be really effective and remembered, it needs to have real content or substance. It has to be more than merely words and brilliant technique. It needs "soul" and one needs to push oneself into the "danger zone" beyond what one knows. Great and effective speaking's like the difference real vertuosity, Jimi Hendrix and any number of guitar clones, who can move their fingers, but not their minds.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 13:50

Sorry, their should have read, "the difference between real virtuosity...ect. In must be the mulled wine!

Mary
17 December 2008 at 19:28

writeon, you are so writeon! Thank you. For those of us who are heavily involved in the conflicts in Africa, Obama is most maddening. Riding on the coattails of the African experience while doing nothing for its citizens. What a phoney.

BegbiesEvilTwin
17 December 2008 at 23:02

writeon: Yup.

SteveL
26 December 2008 at 08:16

Favreau, Obama's 27-year-old chief speechwriter, is

the guy who stood next to a life-size cutout of US

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and groped the figure

in a sexually explicit manner while being

photographed. This is the kind of behavior you'd

expect from a drunken frat boy. But Mr. Favreau is not

a boy. He's a grown man charged with the

responsibility of expressing the highest ideals and

beliefs of our next president. Here’s the picture:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/o

bama-favreau.html

If Favreau was working in any corporation, and posted

pictures of himself gleefully groping the image of a

female colleague, he would lose his job. It’s sexual

harassment.

Favreau’s behavior devalues and disrespects the

incoming US Secretary of State. His jubilant portrayal

of sexual assault should immediately result in his

removal from his position in the new administration.

It’s just plain wrong.

Favreau should be fired now.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Dominic Sandbrook

Dominic Sandbrook is a historian and author. His books include Never Had It So Good: A History of Britain from Suez to the Beatles and White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties. He writes the What If... column for the New Statesman.

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker