The recent Democratic ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Convention in Chicago was a . Presidential nominee Kamala Harris with a strong acceptance speech, but even she couldn’t match the oratorical power of and Obama two nights earlier.
Author
David Smith
Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
US political culture is marked by visionary speeches, from Abraham Lincoln’s and William Jennings Bryan’s “” to Martin Luther King’s “” and Ronald Reagan’s ““. This rhetorical tradition infuses events such as party conventions, where memorable speeches can .
Australia also has some justly famous political speeches. There was Robert Menzies’ “” address of 1942, Paul Keating’s in 1992, and Julia Gillard’s “” to parliament in 2012. Noel Pearson’s in 2014 was a .
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 soaring, visionary rhetoric we see so often in the US. Why is this?
Politics with the soul of a church
US party conventions often look like , and of the recent DNC. Hollywood has become an indelible part of US political culture.
Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, set new standards for how and presidents could be. Donald Trump may not be everyone’s idea of a great orator, but the former reality TV star is certainly a .
The tradition of preaching is an even deeper cultural source of US political rhetoric. With about , the sermon is the most prevalent form of public speech in the US.
American preachers need to be compelling, given the level of religious competition, and church is where many future politicians first encounter the craft of public speaking. American political speeches often reflect the combination of found in preaching.
While evangelical Christianity is usually associated with the Republican Party, it is also in the DNA of Democrats because of the . One of the standout speakers of the DNC was , senior pastor of the .
Warnock described Trump in biblical terms as a “plague on the American conscience”. But he also described a vote as “a kind of prayer for the world we desire for ourselves and for our children”.
Australia has no shortage of politicians who were raised as Christians and have Christian commitments. But unlike in the US, where even secular politicians must pay lip service to prayer, Christian politicians in Australia must to the . This culture does not expect politicians to preach.
Strong speeches for weak parties
Michelle Grattan last week described Australian party conferences as “” compared with the “Hollywood extravaganzas” of their US counterparts.
But the spectacles at US party conventions testify to the of American political parties. The Democratic and Republican ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Committees have . Party organisations are localised and fragmented. They lack the central authority found in Australian parties, and the national convention every four years is the only time a nationwide party truly comes into existence.
Even in Congress, parties have few mechanisms for . Party leaders are forced to negotiate with their own side, . Party conventions see an extravagant display of unity behind a newly nominated candidate. This is one of the few moments party unity is guaranteed.
While there is plenty of competition for power within Australian parties, in Australia it mostly takes place . In the US, would-be legislators and executives need to campaign publicly to win the often brutal primary elections that earn them the party’s nomination.
Successful candidates must create their own personalised campaigns. They have help from local party organisations, which coordinate resources and volunteers, but they need much more than that. A candidate for national office must build their own coalition of donors that would anything a party could provide.
Hence the need for good speech-making. Competition for the attention of donors and voters is fierce, and a compelling speech is a vital way to stand out. This is especially true of , who came from outside the party’s traditional power bases.
In Australia, inspirational speeches don’t have the same political currency. A system of , small preselection contests and means candidates are rewarded more for other political skills.
The Australian advantage: debating
While a US politician might give a more entertaining stump speech than an Australian one, an Australian politician would probably perform better in any scenario that requires unscripted comments – especially a debate with an opponent.
Even superb US political orators can be when they don’t have a script and a receptive audience. Congressional debates consist of prepared speeches with little direct engagement between opponents. There is no equivalent to , and holders of executive office (such as the president or state governors) aren’t even in the legislature.
While Congressional committee hearings can sometimes provide a we associate with Question Time, the structure of Congress isn’t conducive to debate in the same way.
The physical format of Westminster parliaments, with opponents facing each other directly, attests to an adversarial nature that was . The power of Gillard’s “misogyny speech”, which went viral globally, came partly from the way she delivered it .
US Congress was designed differently. The framers of the Constitution loathed the idea of , and imagined a legislature made up of representatives who would negotiate with each other to find consensus. Congress in turn would have to negotiate with the president, who would with its members.
This may explain why, despite the routine brilliance of convention speeches, US presidential debates are so tedious and forgettable. Commentators who try to hype these debates by citing “great moments” from past debates inevitably reach for the same ancient zinger, ““, delivered by 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 saw, where Joe Biden performed so badly he ended his hopes of a second presidency.
In the land of the scripted, the .
David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
