Talking the Talk

Last Thursday evening President Biden delivered the traditional and Constitutionally-mandated* State of the Union speech. As has become sadly normal in these times, the speech was less a dignified overview of the current state and future direction of the nation than a feistily-delivered and angrily-received laundry list that checked all the expected boxes (reproductive rights, voting rights, Ukraine, Gaza, immigration, presidential vitality, etc).

Simply put, the State of the Union speech (or "SOTU," for short) is what has replaced inspirational, thought-provoking oration. As drama and theater critic Peter Marks said a few years ago, 

“... if you’ve ever listened to some of the desultory rhetoric from the well of the Senate, you know that American politics has not exactly built an assembly line of Ciceros.”

As you may recall, I love public speaking and think I'm pretty good at it**. I enjoy preparing and delivering an entertaining and thought-provoking speech, and I especially enjoy listening to one. Unfortunately, nowadays there aren't a lot of speeches worth listening to.

We've come a long way from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Franklin Roosevelt's stirring "Four Freedoms" and first inaugural ("Nothing to fear but fear itself") speeches, and John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" inaugural address.

What do we have now?

We have angry, meaningless word salads from Der Furor that are nevertheless cheered by those unused to thinking in terms of the nation, the world, and the common good. Or, in fact, to thinking at all.

We have a State of the Union address delivered in a forcefully belligerent tone in an attempt to combat the persistent image of a president diminished by age ... an address that was memorable more for its delivery than for its content.

This is sad.

I serve from time to time as a judge for local high school debates, and enjoy the chance to see young people do the difficult work of organizing and presenting ideas with the aim of changing minds. Unfortunately, while they are almost always superb at amassing facts and assembling arguments, they tend to be far less skilled at actually delivering those arguments in a way that will sway the opinions of their audience. Emphasis is placed more on the rapid-fire delivery of as many facts and arguments as can be jammed into a given period of time (anywhere from two to seven minutes in most debates I judge) ... with the result that the listener feels like the exhausted survivor of an oratorical tsunami. 

I firmly believe that two of the most vital skills we can teach our children are to speak and write clearly ... and yet these are the skills lost on a population unable or unwilling to read complex arguments, write cogent and thoughtful letters, and deliver or listen to thought-provoking, challenging speeches.

We don't need the lost assembly line of Ciceros bemoaned by Peter Marks, but we do need a population that can read, listen, speak, and think ... the very population that, sadly, can be swayed by the useless blatherings of empty windbags.

Have a good day, and listen critically to the speeches you hear during this election year. Learn to separate the wheat of rational ideas and policies from the chaff of unfocused anger and retribution. Vote for content - not for noise.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1.

** Pats self on back.