There were many impressive speeches at the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris justified the Democrats’ new enthusiasm with a strong acceptance speech, but even she could not match the oratory power of Michelle and Barack Obama two nights earlier.
American political culture is marked by visionary speeches, from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” to Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” and Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall.” This rhetorical tradition also pervades events such as party conventions, where memorable speeches can lay the groundwork for the presidency.
Australia also has some famous political speeches. Robert Menzies’ “Forgotten People” address in 1942, Paul Keating’s Redfern speech in 1992 and Julia Gillard’s “misogyny speech” in parliament in 2012. Noel Pearson’s eulogy for Gough Whitlam in 2014 was a great speech.
But these speeches are memorable because they are so rare. Australian politicians need to be good communicators, but they are not expected to deliver the kind of high-flown, visionary rhetoric we often see in the US. Why is that?
Politics with the Spirit of the Church.
US party conventions often look like Hollywood awards ceremonies, and Steven Spielberg was recently involved in planning the DNC. Hollywood has become an indelible part of American political culture.
Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, set new standards for how telegenic and entertaining a president could be. Donald Trump might not be a great speaker for everyone, but the former reality TV star is certainly a master of television spectacle.
The tradition of preaching is an even deeper cultural source of American political rhetoric. About 30% of Americans regularly attend religious services, so preaching is the most prevalent form of public speaking in the US.
Given the level of religious competition, American preachers need to be compelling, and the church is where many future politicians first encounter the art of public speaking. American political speeches often reflect the combination of uplift and warning found in the sermon.
While evangelical Christianity is usually associated with the Republican Party, it is also in the Democrats’ DNA because of the civil rights movement and the black church. One of the most prominent speakers at the DNC was Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, who is the senior pastor of the same Baptist church in Atlanta where Martin Luther King Jr. preached.
Warnock, in biblical terms, described Trump as “a plague on the American conscience.” But he also called the vote “a kind of prayer” for “the world we want for ourselves and for our children.”
Australia has no shortage of politicians who were raised as Christians and have Christian commitments. But unlike the US, where even secular politicians have to make a show of praying, Christian politicians in Australia have to adapt to the secularism of Australian culture. This culture does not expect politicians to preach.
Strong speech for weak parties
Michelle Grattan last week described Australian party conferences as “mind-numbing” compared to the “Hollywood extravaganzas” of their US counterparts.
But the spectacle at US party conventions testifies to the fragility of American political parties. The Democratic and Republican national committees have little power. Party organisations are localised and fragmented. They lack the central authority found in Australian parties, and the national convention, held every four years, is the only time when a nationwide party really exists.
Even in Congress, parties have few mechanisms to discipline their members. Party leaders are forced to negotiate with their own side, which is not always successful. Party conventions are an extraordinary display of unity behind the newly nominated candidate. It is one of the few moments when party unity is guaranteed.
There is considerable competition for power within Australian parties, but in Australia this mostly takes place behind closed doors within the party hierarchy. In the US, prospective legislators and executives must campaign publicly to win often brutal primary elections, after which they receive the party nomination.
Successful candidates must build their own individual campaigns. They get help from local party organizations, which coordinate resources and volunteers, but they need more than that. A candidate for national office must build his or her own coalition of donors that dwarfs any donations made by any party.
That’s why a good speech is so important. Competition for the attention of donors and voters is fierce, and a compelling speech is an important way to stand out. This is especially true for candidates like Barack Obama, who come from outside the party’s traditional power base.
In Australia, inspirational speeches do not have as much political importance. The system of strict party discipline, small pre-election contests and short, relatively inexpensive election campaigns means that candidates are rewarded more for other political skills.
Australian advantage: the debate
Although an American politician may deliver a more entertaining speech than an Australian politician, an Australian politician will likely perform better in any scenario that requires unscripted remarks – especially in a debate with an opponent.
Even the best American political speakers can be frustrating when they have no script and a receptive audience. Congressional debates consist of prepared speeches with little direct engagement between opponents. There is no equivalent to parliamentary question time, and holders of executive offices (such as the president or state governors) do not even speak in the legislature.
Although congressional committee hearings can sometimes provide a simulation of the din we associate with Question Hour, the structure of Congress is not conducive to debate in the same way.
The physical form of Westminster parliaments, in which opponents face each other directly, attests to the antagonistic nature that was present from the start. The power of Gillard’s “anti-woman speech”, which went viral globally, came partly from how she delivered it directly to Tony Abbott’s face.
The U.S. Congress was designed differently. The framers of the Constitution abhorred the idea of factionalism, and they envisioned a legislature composed of representatives who would interact with each other to build consensus. Congress in turn would interact with the president, who would rarely need to interact publicly with its members.
This may explain why, despite the regular brilliance of speeches at the convention, US presidential debates tend to be so boring and forgettable. Commentators who try to boost these debates by citing the “great moments” of past debates inevitably resort to the same old quip, “You’re no Jack Kennedy”, uttered by the forgotten vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.
The sad reality is that the most memorable and consequential presidential debate in living memory is the one we just witnessed, in which Joe Biden performed so poorly that his hopes of winning a second term are doomed.
In the world of scripted, the teleprompter is king.
David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)