King George’s Speechification
The other day I caught part of one of those Reagan biographies that have been all over TV this week. While the speech fragments they showed were obviously in a “greatest hits” fashion, I’d forgotten just how good a speaker he was (though I wouldn’t go as far as calling him “The Great Communicator”). Although I strongly disagree with the sentiment of his speeches, I gotta give the old man credit for being able to get his point across. With this in mind, I thought this might be a good starting point for a post that’s been swimming around in my head for awhile about King George’s speaking style.
Specifically, his speaking style sucks a big hairy ass. He seems utterly incapable of spitting out more than 7-8 words in a row (each with no more than 3 syllables). The result of this is that…..his speeches are filled with….strange pauses and incomplete….thoughts. The one exception to this was his speech after 9/11 which is the only time I’ve ever seen Bush exhibit any of the moral clarity and strength that he’s known for.
That was a great speech and with the Presidential race so close, I think Bush is one more great speech away from stealing momentum from Kerry (who won’t really have a chance to get some traction until he makes his VP announcement). So why only one great speech?? The theory I planned to put forward was that grief brought out the best in King George. I would then end my post on the subject with something like “Keep your eyes on Bush’s eulogy for Reagan. If he’s half as good on Friday as he was post 9/11, then he might turn this thing around”.
Well, judging by todays performance, my theory was wrong. Bush’s eulogy was stiff and boring, the humor fell flat, and the tone of his delivery was like that of someone reading a book to a small child. By contrast, his father’s tribute was relaxed, touching, funny, and full of love. (Watch the news tonight and they’ll probably show a clip of Bush Sr. relaying an anecdote about Desmond Tutu that’s a good example of what I’m talking about.) The difference between the two was so striking that it pretty much puts to rest my idea that Junior would be able to deliver a eulogy so powerful that it could have political reverberations.
With my theory proven wrong, this takes me back to square one. Was his post-9/11 speech really that good, or was I just pounded by grief to the point that I was more receptive to his shtick? I still think Bush can turn this thing around, but does he even have a good speech left in him? The way I see it, he’s got a few important speeches between now and election day (Iraq handover and GOP convention being the obvious ones), but at the rate he’s been going, the only way he’ll be able to really reach out is if he gets a whole lot better or the rest of us get a whole lot dumber.
6 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The speech was that good. I think he also had one other good speech, but I don’t remember which one. George’s problem is that he is hamstrung by passive voice. Remember how much you hated teachers’ harping on passive voice? Listen to a Bush speech, and you’ll understand why they went to so much trouble. I wonder if the problem is that his speechwriters are attempting to compensate for what they percieve to be a Bush weakness in public speaking.
Comment by E-Rock — June 11, 2004 @ 5:54 pm
The speech given on the evening of 9/11 was one of the shakiest and least convincing speeches I’d ever seen. I was literally talking to the TV before he started: “C’mon George, I’m rooting for you. Say that thing we need to hear…” Didn’t happen; no one remembers that speech, except for the proposition (almost immediately broken) that we will make “no distinction” between terrorists and countries that harbor them. Going from memory, I believe his speech a few days afterwards was the one that everyone remembers. I think, also, that Karen Hughes announced she’d be leaving the administration between those speeches. Perhaps she had a lot of input in the first one, it sucked, and someone else took thematic control.
I’ve been highly impressed with the speeches written for Bush– imagine that job for a moment. Several have been legitimately great, as far as texts go. (His speech on democracy in the middle east is one example.) They only sound like an empty attempt at something historic and memorable when Bush invariably fumbles the delivery.
Without a prepared text the man is an utterly hopeless embarassment.
Comment by oyster — June 11, 2004 @ 6:55 pm
On the contrary, everyone should read the newest issue of the official magazine of soft facism, The Atlantic Monthly. James Fallows wrote a very intresting article on Bush’s speaking abilities that will overtunr your conception of the man. Attempting to explain it here would be pointless, except to say that he presents a lot of evidence that Bush is (or has been) a great speaker, and that his current speechifying is something of a pose. Well, read the article.
Comment by JoeW — June 12, 2004 @ 12:55 pm
Bush’s style flies all over me. It is a mix of condescension and talking to someone who is retarded. He drops his voice much as you would when you think someone can’t understand you. He sounds over rehearsed and without emotional investment. The little catchphrases fall flat. It is obvious he does not respect the listener. Another problem is that everyone is so on message you hear the same phrases from all the administration officials and the conservative media. How many times did you hear the word “appeasement” right after the Spanish election? The overuse of words and phrases dilutes the message instead of intensifying it.
Comment by Becky — June 14, 2004 @ 7:35 am
I read the Atlantic article– it centered on debates, not speeches, and pointed out that Bush mainly benefits from setting expectations so low he can’t help but surpass them.
Comment by oyster — June 14, 2004 @ 11:28 am
It’s a mix of condescension and talking to someone retarded probably because that’s how Dubya heard people speak to him!
I recall how someone in the administration (Powell?) was admonished to remain “monotonously on message”, and it’s clear that’s expected of all of them who don’t want to be “un-Amurkin.”
Comment by Johnny Bender — June 14, 2004 @ 11:44 am