The Untrained Ear

Maybe it’s just me, but some of this stuff sounds jarring…

The Untrained Ear header image 2
← How A Politician Tries To Dodge A Bullet The Rorschach Candidate →

Persuasion Techniques in Political Speech

March 27th, 2008 · 408 Comments

Barack Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations in the United States (note that I deliberately did not characterize it as a “speech explaining his voluntary choice of the Trinity Church, and Jeremiah Wright as the pastor, for himself, his wife and his daughters,” because that wasn’t in fact what the speech was about), should, as some people have recommended, be studied in schools.

But not necessarily as an inspirational text that showcases the history and aspirations of the American people; rather, this speech should be studied for its architecture, not its content.

Politicians — notwithstanding their reputations — do not typically simply blather on without a goal, focus or point (unless they’re simply running out the clock in an interview, for example, to avoid a difficult question). They do not speak just to make people feel good, or just to inspire. Politicians (or, rather, their speech-writers) design speeches, especially lengthy ones, the way biological engineers might design a virus — with a protein coat of vague, ambiguous words pocked with intellectual antigens that will lock on to particular receptors in the desired audience’s mind, allowing the concealed, packaged meanings to be injected into a listener’s subconscious to achieve a desired effect.

Mr. Obama’s speeches are particularly well-crafted; I am starting to view his writers more as speech engineers. The March 18 address is particularly fertile with examples of consciously-crafted persuasion techniques, one of which I’ll discuss briefly here.

A brief excerpt of one portion (from CBS News):

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

This is an example of pacing the listener’s experience, which builds rapport (a feeling of identification with the speaker, a feeling that the speaker understands who the listener is and what the listener’s life is like), which is the necessary foundation for moving the listener to where the speaker wants the listener to go.

As an analogy, let’s say you’re teaching your child to ride a bicycle. Your child somehow loses control of the bicycle and starts barreling down a hill, going pretty quickly. You could stop the child by standing in front of the child and grabbing her as she goes by — which would be sudden, sharp, unpleasant and probably harmful for your child and you — or you could run alongside your child, grab onto the bicycle, and gradually slow it down until it stops. The latter choice is what building rapport is like — it’s the difference between a tackle and the gentle lead in a waltz, between prizefighting and aikido.

What’s particularly impressive about the above passage, though, is that Mr. Obama is building rapport with two very different audiences simultaneously — “typical” white people and black people. He says “Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” White people hear that sentence and think “darned right I haven’t been privileged by my race. I’m glad this guy understands that!” Black people hear that sentence and think “darned right they don’t feel that — but they sure have been particularly privileged by their race. I’m glad this guy understands how oblivious white people are!”

He next says “Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.” He doesn’t say “most of them are children of immigrants who came here after slavery was abolished” — he says “their experience” was like that of immigrants, and as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything.

Again, white people hear this and say “yeah, I am an immigrant/a child of immigrants — I shouldn’t be punished for slavery — my family was still stuck in the Old Country! This guy’s really a lot like me!” Black people hear this and think “Yup — that’s what a lot of white people don’t get — they think no one’s given them anything, when they’re handed stuff on a silver platter! This guy’s pretty smart, and he’s even saying it to their faces!”

He continues his artful pacing, while seeding his underlying anti-corporate message (things are tough, greedy corporations are outsourcing everything, etc.), while still wrapping the more difficult issues in ambiguity packages: “So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college [not "when an African American is getting an advantage" -- this is presented as if it's an unfounded rumor that white people "hear", rather than an actual phenomenon that happens] because of an injustice that they themselves never committed [leaving open the possibility that their parents, grandparents or other ancestors did] ; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.”

The end result of all this packaging and ambiguity is that two groups can listen to the same speech and think that the speaker is saying completely opposite things. And here both of those groups are now more inclined to agree with his next statements — which, incidentally, characterize certain Republican movements as fueled by rage and resentment, which was exploited by unscrupulous people.

Soon to come: The Pivot.

Tags: Obama · Persuasion

408 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment