Speak to Lead

Iowa Republican Presidential Debate-Winners, losers, gotcha answers, no more huddled masses yearning to be free

Over the years, I have come to loathe U.S. Presidential debates.

I've viewed (double entendre intended) them as one of the rare curses of my profession. I've watched because I know clients will ask me what I thought about the candidates' performances.

On those occasions when I've had a horse in the race, of course, the debates were inherently more interesting, and the stakes more important. 

Otherwise, most debates are like police work: long periods of boredom broken periodically by a moment of excitement.

Tonight's Fox News/Washington Examiner sponsored Republican Primary Debate from Ames, Iowa was different. I found it entertaining.   

Kudos go to Bret Baier who wins top prize for a superb job as moderator. He has the talent of asking good questions, keeping things mostly on track, without being self-important. He has what some of the candidates lack, that sense of being a fun guy to be with.

So what did I think of the candidates?

Here, 90 minutes after the debate was over, and without having taken any notes to refer to, is what I still remember:

Persuasive Messages: Story Power, Greek Tragedies & Post Traumatic Stress Treatment

As those of you who read this regularly know, I'm a strong advocate of the power of stories, the use of narrative, to engage audiences and open them to your messages. 

Today's edition of USA Today contains an interesting article on the use of dramatic narrative, in this case ancient Greek tragedies, to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. It's a creative use of narrative to get troops to recognize the issue and be willing to talk about it.

Read it at "Stressed troops  take cues from ancient plays." 

Presidential oratory, discourse & disagreement - A look back at a kinder time?

Congress has gone home. The president and his family are vacationing in Martha's Vineyard. And most of the political structure (except the ones who can't afford private schools; public schools are already back in session) including the news media, are out of town. 

In short, it's pleasant in DC. 

The contests over health care, economic stimulus, and even acting-president Eric Holder's appointment of a special prosecutor are mild. The vitriol of commentary is muted.

So what a great time to reach back to those days when politicians used kinder, gentler discourse to discuss their opponents. For example:

John Quincy Adams on James K. Polk: Polk is just qualified for an eminent County Court lawyer....He has no wit, no literature, no point of argument, no gracefulness of delivery, no eloquence of language, no philosophy, no pathos, no felicitous impromptus.

Thaddeus Stevens on Andrew Johnson: In Eqypt, the Lord sent frogs, locusts, murrain, lice, and finally demanded the blood of the first-born of all the oppressors....We have been oppressed by taxes and debts, and He has sent us worse than lice, and has afflicted us with Andrew Johnson.

Walter Wellman on Benjamin Harrison: [Harrison] is narrow, unresponsive and , oh, so cold. As one Senator says, "It's like talking to a hitching post."

Well, maybe looking for a biting sound bite has long been a part of presidential disagreement.

Source of quotes: 1,001 Things Everyone Should Know about American History by John A. Garraty. ISBN: 0-385-24432-0

Sound Bite Malpractice: Time to Bury the "H-word"

A sound bite is designed for two main purposes:

1. To convey a message in verbal "shorthand;" and
2. To get quoted by reporters

Unfortunately, as a technique it can, and often is, used inappropriately. The wording is highly quotable, but the distillation of the message is deceptive or the comparison is invalid.

For example, earlier this month Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) equated President Bush's response to the events of 9-11 to German Chancellor Adolf Hitler's response to the burning of the German parliament building in 1933. 

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

After two House Republicans demanded a reprimand of Ellison, and the Anti-Defamation League asked for a retraction, "Mr. Ellison stood by his remarks...but said he did not intend to link the Bush administration to Nazi Germany," wrote Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times. "In an interview with the Associated Press...Mr. Ellison backed down and said, 'In hindsight, I wouldn't have used that reference point.'"

I applaud the congressman for his new awareness. Still, I wonder why this is an issue of hindsight rather than foresight. Using a Hitler comparison does create a sound bite that gets attention. But it's offensive. It trivializes the enormity of Nazi rule. [See a related post when Senator Durban, D-Illinois, invoked a Hitler comparison.]

Recently, the NAACP buried the "n-word." It's time for all, and especially politicians, to bury the "H-word." Limit Hitler to discussions of Nazi Germany and the holocaust. To do otherwise is to engage in sound bite malpractice.

 

Making a Speech Immortal: How Keeping in One Line in Ronald Reagan's Brandenburg Gate Speech 20 Years Ago Changed It from Good to Immortal

Today is the 20th anniversary of what has become Ronald Reagan's most famous speech.

On June 12, 1987, President Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and issued a challenge to the leader of the Soviet Union, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Two years later, citizens of Soviet-controlled East Berlin did indeed tear down the wall, marking the beginning of the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Reagan's speech teaches several lessons. One is especially important for executives whose speeches are prepared by speechwriters and then circulated to others in the organization for review and comment. The first lesson

Public Speaking: Logistics Matter Part 2--Staff Error Makes Tony Blair's Successor Invisible

Little did I know when I was writing yesterday's post on "Logistics Matter" that "across the pond" the staff of would-be British prime minister Gordon Brown was demonstrating (unintentionally I presume) how poor logistics can sabotage the message.

It seems that Mr. Brown's staff told the broadcast technicians to change the angle of the teleprompter (autocue to the Brits) screens. The result is best seen by clicking here. Mr. Gordon can't be seen by the press! A good clue that your message isn't being heard loud and clear is when the first question is "I can't see you. Can you see me?" (BBC reporter)

Two Lessons:

1. Unless you really know what you're doing, don't override the technicians on matters of prompter placement or lighting. If you think something is not right, mention your concerns to them and let them explain why things are the way they are.*
2. Always check the audience sight line, by sitting in various spots around the room.

*Broadcast technicians at the major networks and stations are professionals. They will do the right thing. This is not always true of a/v technicians you may encounter at a hotel or conference venue. I have found they frequently do a set up that is convenient for them, not necessarily one that is best for the speaker.

Imus Advertiser's Self Delusion: We Can Say One Thing & Do the Opposite

Lesson: What you say as a leader will have a lot more impact if it represents what you do. Which brings us to the news this morning that two advertisers have pulled their sponsorship of Don Imus' radio show.

While I applaud Staples and Bigelow Tea Company for doing so, I was amused and dismayed by the statement issued by Bigelow, which earns the tea company the BS of the Day Award.

"While Bigelow Tea has been an advertiser on the 'Imus in the Morning show,' the company does not condone or support in any way the unacceptable comments made by Imus with regard to the Rutgers University women's basketball team," Cindi Bigelow, the company's co-president, said in a statement. "Bigelow Tea is a family company that prides itself on honoring and respecting all individuals." [emphasis added]

Really? Let me get this right, Ms Bigelow. You pride yourself on "honoring and respecting all individuals," yet you've been advertising on a show whose host's shtick is cynicism, insult, mockery, and ridicule. Didn't you ever notice the disconnect between what you were supporting and what you claim are your company values?

You would have done better to limit your statement to the first sentence. It's specific and believable. The "prideful" tag line is belied by Bigelow's actions and comes across for what it is, BS.

State of the Union Review-Part II: Throat Lozenge or Chewing Gum-Pelosi’s Dilemma

On camera for nearly an hour with millions of people watching and nothing to say-welcome to the world of Vice President Cheney and House Speaker (but on this occasion House Listener) Nancy Pelosi. Put yourself in their shoes. You are sitting behind the president. He is the main feature. But you are constantly visible in the camera shot. What should you be doing?

Many of us face the same situation, although in much lower-profile circumstances, when we are seated at a head table or on the platform while someone else speaks, or even in a meeting when we are seated near the speaker. What’s the protocol?

Except in those posturing situations where you are strategically nodding, shaking the head, or rolling the eyes in response, your focus should be on the speaker. First, it’s the considerate thing to do. Second, if someone in the audience looks away from the speaker and sees you, his or her attention will be directed to whatever you are focused on.

So how did the Veep and the Speaker do? Mrs. Pelosi has a very pleasant neutral expression and for the most part kept her attention on the president. Early in the speech, however, she started pursing her lips and moving her lower jaw. “Chewing gum,” was my first reaction. But the movement was not consistent or constant enough. “Repositioning a throat lozenge or breath mint,” was my second guess. I was about to settle on that as “my final answer” when the Speaker began sucking in the cheeks.

Ah ha! The I’ve-got-something-stuck-between-my-teeth, and it’s driving be crazy, response. With millions of people watching, picking the teeth is not an option. That leaves trying to suck the offending morsel out. In time the facial motions stopped. I presume the internal flossing worked; the motions did not recur. Lesson: Be careful what you eat before a public appearance, especially on television.

The vice president seemed more interested in seeing what else was going on than in focusing on the speech. In fact at one point he looked past the president directly into the camera. I though he was ready to give his own speech.  Perhaps he had sat through too many rehearsals.

State of the Union Review-Part I: Snow's Snow Job

Well, so much for Tony Snow's assurance that this years address would be shorter. It lasted 50 minutes, the norm for President Bush's other State of the Union speeches. Maybe Snow's comments were wishful thinking. Or perhaps the outlines he saw did indicate a shorter running time. Sometimes speeches expand between original version and delivery.

The classic case of this was Bill Clinton's speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention, a tedious 32-minute address "that has gone down in the books as the worst nominating speech in recent memory." (Bill Schneider and Keating Holland/CNN) When Clinton finished his final rehearsal, the speech was under 12 minutes. Amazing how many ideas pop up at the last minute. (Clinton later said of the speech, "It wasn't my finest hour. It wasn't even my finest hour and a half." )

State of the Union Address—Long Is Out, Short Is In; or Maybe Jefferson Had It Right

Late last week, Tony Snow, President Bush’s spokesperson, let us know that tonight’s State of the Union address abandons the long-running tradition of the hour-long speech. Why? Because as Snow said, “We want people to watch.”

Snow has provided a reality check to White House communication. Audiences want shorter presentations. In general, if you are speaking for over ten minutes, you need humor and other forms of interactivity to hold your listeners.

Just because the president’s speech will be shorter, of course, doesn’t mean we’ll see much of an increase in viewers. I suspect most Americans wouldn’t tune in if the speech were only five minutes long. And after all, why should they? We already know what the president is going to say. But the concept of shorter is certainly sound.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. Realizing that the Constitution did not require the president to speak to the Congress, Jefferson wrote his report and sent it to the Congress. The 24 presidents who followed Jefferson did the same. The country did just fine. 

For further history--including recent presidents who chose not to speak to Congress--and for the texts of State of the Union messages, click here.