Orson Welles once observed that politics was, in essence, an act. Mitt Romney’s commencement speech to Liberty University – the largest Christian University in the world  - was certainly a balancing act: on how to talk about his religion – or rather not. Because Mr Romney did not use the word “Mormon” once in this speech. Indeed there was only one reference to Salt Lake City, when he spoke of his role in rescuing the “2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City.”

Mitt Romney has a big problem getting people to vote for a Mormon – so guess what? Don’t mention the Mormons. But equally he knows that he has to find a way to connect with the massive mainstream Christian vote. At Liberty University he did this by reaching out to what is shared not what is different:

“People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology. Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview.”

“We can meet in service” is a brilliant phrase – playing on the joint connotations of religious service and public service (of an elected official). By bringing these two ideas together in a single phrase he brings them together in his audience’s minds: the connection suggesting that voting him in as President has a Christian outcome – because he will do what a good orthodox Christian would do. (Note that Mr Romney addressed his university audience in a black academic gown, with its broad white strap drawn up high– which made him look like a very well dressed clergyman).

Mainstream Christian Views

So this important speech was all about proving his “orthodoxy”.  Route One to orthodoxy is the family. So for instance Romney quoted C. S. Lewis ( a favourite Christian professor) as saying:

“The home is the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose, and that is to support the ultimate career.”

Of course, most critically of all, orthodoxy rests in marriage. Romney alluded to this when he remarked that fundamental principles of faith may become topics of democratic debate:

“So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

This was in sharp contrast to President Obama’s comments on marriage during the week in an interview with ABC News when he endorsed same sex marriages while recognising that some people would have a big problem with this:

“I think it’s important to recognize that– folks– who– feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as– between a man and a woman– many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They’re coming at it because they care about families.”

Again it’s worth noting Obama did not say that people feel strongly about marriage on religious grounds, simply that “they care about families.”

In these speeches it seemed that both candidates are heading out on the Christian campaign trail – and finding it a narrow and tricky one. Both are only too aware that religion and the religious vote is going to have a profound effect on the outcome of the Presidential election.

Mitt Romney observed:

“Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution.”

In fact he could have said it is the first thing on the electorate’s subconscious. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign theme was “It’s the economy, stupid.” For Romney, twenty years on, “It’s the religion, stupid.” – whether that refers to his own Mormon faith, or the overwhelming influence of heartland Christians in determining the vote.

To read the whole of Mitt Romney’s speech to Liberty University click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2419/

Aristotle told us some 2000 years ago, in the Art of Rhetoric, that there are three dimensions to a successful
speech: ethos, pathos and logos: the character the speaker, the sympathy with the audience and the content.
President Barack Obama’s speech to the Nation might introduce a fourth: topos, or sense of place.

This speech was first and foremost about using the topos: President Obama was speaking to
the Nation from Bagram Airbase (the title of the speech was “Address to the
Nation from Afghanistan”). That takes a minute or two to think through. He was
not talking to the US troops at Bagram, or the Afghan troops or to the Afghani
people. He was speaking to people in homes all across America, from “the mighty
mountains of New York” to “the curvaceous slopes of California”.

So the “meaning” of this speech is framed by the topos. It defined how his audience were
informed. It gave Obama appeal – speaking from Bagram Airbase he was stating
that it was safe for an American President to set foot in Afghanistan – with all
that that meant for the war being won. It also gave him personal power – he was
a President speaking from a foreign country, a country now controlled by
America. And it gave him chutzpah (as we know now Bin Laden specifically instructed his al Qaeda operatives to seek
ways to shoot down Obama on flights into Bagram.)

Being The Commander in Chief

But above all it allowed him to choose what sort of character, what ethos, he wish to
convey to his audience. In this speech Obama was “The man in charge”. His
referred to himself twice at key points in the speech as “The Commander-in-Chief” (rather than President), a term that
resonated beyond its military reference. President Obama used this speech to
reinforce his presence, to convey himself as a strong man, and to underpin his
status as the man in charge – in the run up to American elections. He knows
that this image will have Mitt Romney on the defensive (at the recent White
House Correspondents Dinner, he was able to poke a brilliant joke at Mitt
Romney’s expense:

“Anyway, it’s great to be here this evening in the vast, magnificent Hilton ballroom – or what Mitt
Romney would call a little fixer-upper.”

In this speech he was able to send a picture (literally) into American homes of himself as a man of action, the Commander in Chief, in a way that Mitt Romney will always find it difficult to emulate – Romney’s attraction,
his ethos is about “success”, not Command. And the latter is a vital aspect in
American electoral decision making: “Is this candidate up to running the country, to taking us to war?”

Now, coming to the pathos of the speech: this address was all about connecting with Americans,
sharing in their concerns over the war. The second half of the speech, in which
Obama directly addresses these concerns, is much more caring, both in tone and
language. He stated for example:

“Today, we recall the fallen and those who suffered wounds, both seen and unseen.”

The comment “both seen and unseen” is an unusual remark for a Commander-in-Chief: it speaks of, and
to, a modern sensibility. A “caring commander” is a very powerful statement in
a Presidential campaign.

How do we get out of here?

Contrast this tone with the first half of the speech, in which he outlined, almost perfunctorily, how “we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.”

“First, we’ve begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security…. Second, we are training Afghan security forces to get the job done…”

It’s a small detail but worth noting – Obama used a list of five points here. Numbers. He
wants this explanation to go direct to the audience’s rational understanding. The
sentences are short; meaning is unequivocal. There is no emotion here.

And in turn this point unlocks the most interesting aspect of the whole speech. There is no
emotion when he talks of Afghanistan. There is not a single reference to the
suffering of the people of Afghanistan – in contrast to his remarks about the “half a million of our sons and daughters
have sacrificed to protect our country”, or “3,000 innocent men, women and children” killed by Al Qaeda in
attacks on the United States.

It is as though the Afghan people have been bystanders, indeed as he remarked: “civilians in Afghanistan have done their
duty.”

Ultimately then the President is undone in this speech by the topos. He may be using the topos – but he does not understand it.

To read the full text of President Obama’s Address to the Nation from Afghanistan go to: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2397/

Anthony Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, at the Bank of England is one of the very best speakers on financial matters. This week at the INET conference, “Creating a Socially Useful Financial System”, he was at his wise at witty best.

Consider:

“Return on capital is no longer investors’ priority. Return of capital is.”

Or:

“While bank performance has fallen off a cliff, executive pay remains close to pre-crisis Himalayan heights.”

He even opened his presentation with a slide of a very large bull elephant seal: “Elephant seals have got too big for their beaches… Large males fight for the right to mate with a whole beach full of females. For elephant seals it is, quite literally, winner-takes-all. And the key to winning is simple –size”. He went on to equate the winner-takes-all mentality of the elephant seal with financial firms – and their obsessive desire of “keeping up with the Goldmans”.

Trading at the speed of light

The heart of the speech was an eloquent review of the financial arms race that led to the Credit crisis and continues to threaten markets today. A new and very interesting threat has emerged, speed: “Over the past decade, trading in financial markets has undergone a technological revolution. The frontier of this revolution is defined by speed. A decade ago, trade execution times were measured in seconds. A few years ago, they were measured in milliseconds. Today, they are measured in microseconds. Tomorrow, it will be nano-seconds or pico-seconds”.

Trading speeds it seems played a key part in the so-called Flash Crash of May 6 2010 (or “The Crash of 2.45”!), in which the Dow Jones plunged a 1000 points and then gained a 1000 – all in a few instants. High speed automated trading caused the entire US system to seize. Since then, Haldane sanguinely remarked, there have been “a large number of mini Flash Crashes in markets as varied as Japanese yen and cocoa futures.”

A new Techno Language

None of that made me feel any better; and it was notable through this section that Haldane’s terms changed. The languid references to “Darwinian tournaments”, and Alice in Wonderland’s “Red Queen Race” of the opening sequences of the speech, gave way to a very different techno-babble now – terms such as “quote stuffing”, “zero latency” and “message traffic congestion”. As the terms became more technical, more silicon – it became clear that human control over the trading, as over the language, is becoming less and less. (Rather the technology is moulding the language). The great threat of a market crash engendered by computer trading is become more likely. And with that something more disturbing evolved from his remarks – the realisation that none of this market making is actually real any more – it can’t be when trades are happening in “pico-seconds”. It all takes place in a silicon space.

Haldane actually recognised this in his remark:

“The mirage of liquidity proved just that. That evaporation appears to have played a key role in propagating stress during the Flash Crash.”

It is an extraordinary phrase, “the mirage of liquidity”, and it does exactly capture both the nature of automated markets and also why we are now in a new phase of finance.

For all the delightful references to peacocks, elephant seals, and Darwinian tournaments, we are no longer in a world driven by recognisable natural forces, such as the survival of the fittest. We are in a new world that does not recognise the blind watch maker that does not obey Darwinian rules. That like, The Terminator, just keeps coming on, in trades “faster than the speed of light”.

These are new areas where regulators do not hold sway. Haldane’s speech opened with a Darwinian curiosity, the great survivor, the elephant seal alone on the beach. Somehow that seemed a telling image for a regulator. But his phrase the “mirage of liquidity” will haunt me more.

To read a full transcript of Anthony Haldane’s speech click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2369/

Needless to say there has been much angst during the week over the decision to allow Behring Anders Breivik to make a statement to the court in his defense. This case – many argued – went right to very heart of the freedom of speech debate: should this monster be allowed to speak?

The main objections seemed to be that he was allowed to speak for so long. Indeed he was interrupted by the judge on a number of occasions:

“Arntzen: Breivik …

Breivik: Yes.

Arntzen: Are you approaching a conclusion to this written your post?

Breivik: I’m on page six. Of the 13. I have come half way.

Arntzen: Yes, very much. And now it’s been thirty minutes, so I suggest you prepare a termination of your written reading.”

13 pages.. of this…. you could almost feel the judge’s draw drop! Equally there were others who found the length of the diatribe offensive – in that he was allowed to say too much. Helen Pidd “tweeting live” for The Guardian found the statement too distressing relay completely and therefore offered only edited tweets; which sort of missed the point.

In fact there was very little in the speech that was shocking; his evidence under examination has been much more devastating. Instead it was rather boring. It told us very little new about right wing fanatics or extreme political views. But it did have interesting things to say about the mind of the man himself, or what sort of mind it is.

Never Read Your Cuttings

First of all, never believe celebs or criminals who say they don’t read the press. Breivik seems someone who had devoured every column inch about himself:

”They also claimed that I am narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, that I suffer from germ phobia and put on a face mask daily for many years.  I only like red sweaters and that I have an incestuous relationship with my own mother. They also claimed that I am miserable, pathetic, a baby killer, a child killer despite the fact that I am not accused of having killed someone under the age of 14. That I’m a coward, inbred, homosexual, paedophile, necrophilic, racist, sociopath, fascist, Nazi, Zionist and anarchist…. But it is important that everyone understands why these cultural elites, journalists, editors, and even prosecutors in this case, will continue to ridicule, mock and lie about me.”

From this extract it’s clear Breivik does care deeply what people say about him (what’s wrong with red sweaters!); all the posturing in the court, the fist salutes are narcissistic. That is interesting because that is in line with Nazism; there is a narcissism which runs deep here and it is conveyed in the language. For instance his claim:

“I have implemented the most sophisticated, spectacular, and the most brutal political assassination committed by militant nationalist in Europe since World War II.” 

Breivik clearly has to be seen as special; and notice the frame of reference back to World War II, repeated many times in the course of the speech. The War is clearly the anchor line in his outlook/philosophy. It gives him a moral and emotional framework from which to view the world. Past Wars justify future conflict – because they reveal the true dark side of man. Conflict is more “true” to human nature for Breivik than conciliation.

Continuous Abstractions

The second thing to notice about the speech is its jargon and overwhelming sense of abstraction:

“There is no foundation for democracy and all our state institutions such as schools and universities permeated by cultural Marxist and multicultural curriculum. … It’s no secret that the opponents of cultural Marxism and multiculturalism have been silenced after World War II. This opinion tyranny is the real terror. “

There is the abstraction of the endlessly repeated terms “cultural Marxism” and  “multiculturalism” = which is continued even in his more threatening comments:

“There comes a purifying storm. This civil war will not come suddenly and unexpectedly. There will be a gradual escalation and polarization in society, and we will see more frequent attacks from right-wing patriots and from Islamists.”

“Escalation”, “polarisation”, “right wing-patriots”, “Islamists” – these are all abstractions – there is no sense of real people here – only terms.

And the same is also reflected in Breivik’s use of statistics in the speech:

“A British survey showed that 69 per cent of Britons see immigration as either a problem or as a very big problem. Source references are in the compendium. Another survey from February 2010, from the UK, showed that a massive 70 per cent are dissatisfied with multiculturalism and Islamisation. 70 per cent dissatisfied with multiculturalism and Islamisation.”

His outlook is framed by huge ideological movements, by stats and numbers, and empty lists. The really chilling dimension to all this rhetoric is not its accusations but in the abstraction – the almost complete absence of any human dimension to his thinking and language.

It is in this one might understand the mind of the monster: he shows no pity or remorse for his actions because he does not recognize that they were actions against real, simple, human beings – but a war against abstract ideologies. He does not see people as individuals but as political stats.

One can hear this mind at work in his denial and it dead-sounding, abstract list of causes:

“And I can not admit guilt. I acted with the principle of necessity on behalf of my people, my culture, my religion, my city and my country.”

The chilling moment

There is only one human moment, one piece of everyday language in the whole speech. It comes when he reviews the terrible legacy of “60 years of Labor” of “multiculturalism” and “cultural Marxism” and observes:

“The only thing that we would be left with is sushi and flat panel displays” 

Suddenly we have an insight into the real – in the reality of Breivik’s own life and lonely days of “sushi” and video games on “flat panel displays”.

One has the sense that it was a horror of this life, of complete anonymity, from which Breivik has recoiled.

In the end, the argument for the freedom of speech is not that it simply protects but that it reveals. Speech always reveals the mind of the man or woman standing before the crowd.

To read the whole of Anders Breivik’s court statement click http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2348/

This week Rick Santorum announced he was dropping out of the Presidential race. The news came during a speech at Gettysburg. No pressure there then.

Santorum referred briefly to the great speech, though interestingly he did not quote from it:

“I think what I tried to bring to the battle was what Abraham Lincoln brought to this battlefield back in 1863 on November 19th, when he talked about this country being conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal back in 1863 in November 19^th.”

The bridge between the two speeches is contrived around “battle” and “battlefield”. However although the great Gettysburg Address was made at the battlefield, the speech was not about battle but about sacrifice. The Gettysburg Address was a funeral oration:

“That these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom”

So Santorum missed the connect. While it’s unfair to make comparison between the two speeches – it is fair to say this was not a Presidential speech. But it was revealing about the issues that helped raise Santorum’s Presidential campaign and give him some memorable victories. Or as he put it:

“Miracle after Miracle. This race was as improbable as any you will ever see for President.”

From the stentorian King James tones of Abraham Lincoln, the Santorum style is more Latter Day Saints and Evangelical. He repeats words such as “voice” and “witness” many times.

Modern Confessional

This speech was a “confessional” in the sense that much of modern American rhetoric is about establishing a common ground with an audience through admission, through admitting human frailty and suffering in its broadest sense.

Take a look at the examples Santorum used in his remarks:

“Our best phone caller asked after Iowa was a young man who came to our first event in Oklahoma in a wheelchair named Nathaniel who had spina bifida.”

And

“People like Wendy Jensen who was our best volunteer; 5-thousand phone calls. And just a few days before the primary, because she is someone who is dealing with a disability, dealing with an illness, she passed away shortly before the caucus but was someone that I remembered her passion for the least of us.”

Santorum successes came down to being able to connect to people through sharing their basic concerns, their” sufferings”. And it was this that he captured in his trade mark sweater vest:

“Amazing thing, that sweater vest. It happened on a night I was doing an event for Mike Huckabee in Des Moines and showed up and everyone was in suits and ties and I showed up in a sweater vest, and it turned out I gave a pretty good speech that night and all of a sudden the Twitter-verse went wild and said it must be the sweater vest. From that point on the sweater vest became the official wardrobe of the Santorum campaign.”

The Sweater Vest Significance

The success of the sweater vest has been much analysed: The New York Times positioned the vest as grandfatherly; the LA Times called it “avuncular.” Meanwhile, the Boston Herald went out on a limb and accused Santorum of “looking like a McDonald’s trainee.” Scarlett Johansson just declared the sweater vest “so sad”. (That must have hurt). While one can see that the sweater vest might have had connotations of the “ordinary Jock” and “the man next door”  – whom you could trust/rely on – I think this speech and language Santorum used in it showed that the real message of the sweater vest, the secret to its huge popularity, was because it spoke of vulnerability. Stretched over Santorum’s slightly paunchy body it made him look vulnerable; the sleeveless style suggesting only a part armour, a vulnerability that was nevertheless still prepared to have a go:

“There’s a lot of greatness… in this country. We just need leaders who believe in that. Who are willing to give voice to that. Who are willing to raise us up instead of trying to provide for us and do for us what we can better do for ourselves.”

Santorum’s acceptable vulnerability lay at the heart of his success and the fact that it struck a chord across America is revealing of how the nation is feeling.

So it may be good bye to the Sweater Vest Man, but – lest we forget – as he said:

“Against all odds we won 11 states. Millions of voters. Millions of votes.”

 To read the full text of Rick Santorum’s speech click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2345/

Earlier this year, writer Salman Rushdie was prevented from speaking (even via video link) at a literary festival in Jaipur because fears of violent protests.

This week, Rushdie was invited by India Today to speak at its Conclave in Delhi. As he said:

“They called me and suggested that we needed to put that matter right, and that this would be a way of doing it.”

One of the other celebrities due to speak, Imran Khan, subsequently pulled out of the event because of Rushdie’s presence. This did not amuse Salman; and he used the start of the speech as a devastating series of taunts at the former cricketer:

“You know, there was a time when I would have felt very uneasy indeed to face Imran Khan… on the cricket pitch. But times change; and now it seems that it is Imran who is afraid of facing my bouncers.”

And

“Imran is a man of the old school. Maybe he doesn’t understand how this new-fangled stuff called email works.”

And then, sharpest of all,

“By the way, The Satanic Verses is a book which I would be willing to place a substantial bet that Imran Khan has not read. Back in the day when he was a playboy in London, the most common nickname for him in the London circles was ‘Im the dim’.”

Forget bouncers, this is Bodyline.

At the end of these taunts at Imran Khan, Rushdie remarked:

“This is what we call the exercise of freedom of speech. It feels pretty good.”

One gets the sense of a boxer in a ring, the sense of enjoyment in landing punches. And of course that is the exhilaration of speech making for someone as accomplished as Salman Rushdie, able to take Imran Khan’s claim

“that he wouldn’t dream of being seen with me because of what he calls the “immeasurable hurt” that I have caused to Muslims.”

And use it against his opponent with a simple twist of a word:

“Immeasurable hurt” is caused to Islam by people like the fanatic who killed this young man (Aatish Taseer)’s father and by those who showered the killer with flower petals when he came to court. Immeasurable hurt, Imran? This kind of hurt is measurable.”

In this little twist of immeasurable to measurable not only overturns Imran Khan’s comment but also shows why language is so powerful. Changing just one word can devastate your opponent.

The rest of the speech is devoted to familiar territory for Rushdie, defending freedom of speech:

“Here in India also, a combination of religious fanaticism, political opportunism and, I have to say, public apathy is damaging that freedom upon which all other freedoms depend: the freedom of expression.”

Rushdie is arguing that fanaticism is leading to a new “cultural war” while all about the economic miracle of modern India continues to bloom.

That’s an interesting insight, but not as interesting is the language of violence Rushdie uses to for his argument. For example:

“There is a line in my novel Shalimar, the Clown in which one character says to another, “Freedom is not a tea party, India. Freedom is a war.”  You keep the freedoms that you fight for; you lose the freedoms that you neglect.”

“War”, “fight”, “defend” all carry the sense of violence. And suddenly one sees that language is far more than words. It is violence. It is a weapon. A speech is a fist fight. That is why speeches matter and why they are (rightly?) feared: because they are a means of violence, sharper, stronger, more destructive than guns or knives. This insight seems all the more appropriate emanating from a man sentenced to death by a fatwa, issued by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini for the words he used in The Satanic Verses. One can argue Rushdie is an innocent victim of fanatics, or one can recognise that people use language as violence and may not be altogether surprised at the violent reaction it provokes.

Salman Rushdie ended this speech in India with the observation that:

“The human being, let’s remember, is essentially a language animal… The attempt to silence our tongue is not only censorship. It’s also an existential crime about the kind of species that we are.”

We are the language animal indeed, whose deadliest weapon is speech.

To read the full text of Salman Rushdie’s speech in Delhi click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2330/

David Miliband addressed a fund raising event this week in aid of OneVoice, the movement aimed at ending Israel-Palestinian conflict. His speech was, to use Miliband’s own dialectic, both “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. “Ordinary” in that it was not laced with rhetoric or major announcements or grand claims – which might have been his province when Foreign Secretary and almost certainly would have been had he become Labour Leader. “Extraordinary” in that it was a speech given from the far side of failure; he felt able to tell his audience what the world of politics and diplomacy are really like: what really matters in these spheres.

This was a speech littered with those signal words “actually” and “frankly”. For example, talking of the failure in Israel-Palestinian diplomacy, he said:

”It’s the greatest diplomatic failure because, actually, it is one of those international problems to which there is actually a viable solution.”

“Actually” is the small word here, the equivalent of an “um” or an “err..”, but it is also most telling. If one listens to the literal in this speech it is really quite shocking: “actually there is a viable solution”….

This hard-edged, front-line candour ran through all he said; like a confession. Indeed, “truth” was a word he used over and over again.

“The truth is that the agenda in Israel, in the United States, and I have to say in the large part in the Gulf is not about Israel and Palestine, it is about Iran. The truth is that the Arab Spring has turned regional attention away from the Israel-Palestine question.”

Or

“The wider truth is that OneVoice is doing some good in circumstances that are basically very bad. In fact, the circumstances in many ways have rarely been worse in the last 30 or 40 years.”

The new geo-politics is about to leave Israel-Palestinian problem behind.

Speaking in “basic politics”

David Miliband’s confession went further:

“This is a very challenging period because in blunt terms, to speak in basic politics to you, the Israel-Palestine question is probably now fourth or fifth on the Middle East political agenda, never mind on the global political agenda.”

And finally (from a UK Foreign Secretary!) the revelation that our reliance on the US to broker a solution for Israel-Palestinian problems for the last five decades has been misplaced:

“If we rely only on the United States as the motor of progress in the region, then I am afraid we are going to be waiting a very long time.”

And then:

“I think that it is true… in Israel and in Palestine, the talk of a “peace process” rings hollow. Calls for a new, renewed, integrated “peace process” rings hollow.”

Not only did he tell OneVoice that their cause was slipping into insignificance but he also suggested that in their heart of heart, no-one in the audience believed in the peace process any more.

The Lost Leader

Of course, if one listens to the literal in this speech one can hear not only how the world has changed since the Arab Spring, but also how far David Miliband himself has travelled. For example, when putting a new gloss on the notion that people get the governments they deserve:

“I spent 20 years trying to help the Labour Party become a good government for the people, but what OneVoice amongst others taught me was that you can’t have a good government for the people unless you have a commitment to the government by the people.”

As a Labour Leader David Miliband would never have had the freedom of voice to make this statement. It reveals how far David Miliband has now travelled from the front bench. So when people talk of his return, it seems impossible to me for a man who has now understood, with such candour, the reality that people must commit to government – could ever come back to lead a government again.

William Blake, the greatest revolutionary poet, once asked: “What is the price of experience. Do men buy it for a song”.

In this speech one can hear the voice of experience, not jaundiced exactly but certainly changed.

As Blake said:

“It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me.“

To read the whole text of David Miliband’s speech to OneVoice click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2324/

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s remarks in Budapest on Thursday 15^th were a model for “How to Make a Nationalist speech in Modern Europe”. Typically he began with the past  – the speech was framed around two great Hungarian uprisings against foreign super powers: the 1848-49 uprising against Hapsburg rule and the 1956 revolution against communism. In both instances, he argued, Hungary was a beacon to the people of Europe:

“They looked at us like this in 48-49, when Europe became silent, silent again, but then the feudalist world disintegrated all around Europe and strong nations were born in its place.  They looked at us like this in 56, but the communist tyranny, that we drove the first nail into, finally collapsed, allowing Europe to reunite again.”

Hungary’s defiance was characterized as the force which ultimately unites Europe. Nationalism was shown as a force for freedom, because ultimately nationalism was an expression of the people:

“The political and intellectual program of 1848 was this: we will not be a colony! The program and the desire of Hungarians in 2012 goes like this: we will not be a colony!”

Of course a good nationalist speech must also play on certain words/fears. For Orban the angle was to play on Hungarian fear of the loss of sovereignty/freedom to Europe  - and his bombshell word “colony”, followed by the even more loaded term, “axis”:

“We are more than familiar with the character of unsolicited comradely assistance, even if it comes wearing a finely tailored suit and not a uniform with shoulder patches. We want Hungary to revolve around its own axis, therefore we are going to protect the constitution, which is the security for our future”.

Nationalism and the language of colloquialism

Orban’s speech  also demonstrated perfectly the type of language to use in a good nationalist speech, and why this language is important. For example, in the example above his use “comradely assistance” and” finely tailored suit” is brilliant piece of derisive “colloquialism”.

In fact Orbans deploys the  same colloquialism throughout the speech:

“An independent national bank is one, which protects the national economy from foreign interests. They knew and we also know well that anyone with common sense will not entrust the neighbours with the keys to the pantry.”

The colloquialism of “finely tailored suits”, “keys to the pantry” is a key feature of nationalist rhetoric. When Orban talks of  Europe’s problems he says “the clog wheels are creaking”, and of leaving “countries by the roadside”. This colloquialism not only brings colour and thus memorability to the speech, it also speaks to the common sense of the audience, the ordinary people who can see things far more clearly than the politicians or bureaucrats. Above all this colloquialism allows Orban to both deride Europe and to put a put a distance between what he characterises as Hungarian “wisdom of the people” and Europe’s “the unholy alliance”

“We will not sit and watch idly, if any political or intellectual trend tries to force an unholy alliance on Europe.”

The most telling word here is “intellectual” (always suspect to nationalists!) – dangerous people because they do not live in the real world, they do not have to live with the consequences of their ideals – only the common people do.

So far then, the speech works as a fine example of modern nationalist rhetoric – that is of course until one examines the obvious – which is that this speech is about nationalism – or rather that one can’t forget that nationalism is a real dimension to a country’s behaviour.

Nationalists have a point! Their Past.

When Orban lists the nations who have supported Hungary recently, he recites:

“Our Lithuanian, Czech, Latvian, Slovenian and Romanian friends have all stood up for us. Not only did they stand up for us, they also came, our Lithuanian and Polish friends are here to celebrate with us.”

No surprise that this list of Eastern European country’s who endured communist rule. The experience of a nation defines its response. The simple, obvious truth of this speech is that nationalism cannot be ignored in the new Europe. Orban and others express the views of the silent crowds

“We also have with us the silently abiding Europe of many tens of millions, who still insist on national sovereignty and still believe in the Christian virtues of courage, honour, fidelity and mercy, which one day made our continent great.”

The surprise of this speech is that nationalism does have a voice, a valid voice in Europe (Orban enjoys the strongest democratic mandate in the EU, his Fidesz party won the 2010 election with a stomping two thirds majority). Dismissing nationalism is more dangerous than letting it speak.

There was one other surprise at the end of the speech. Nationalism needs an enemy to attack. It had seemed through the speech that that enemy was European bureaucrats. But for Orban the conspiracy goes deeper, to a new foe:

“If we don’t act in time, in the end, the whole of Europe can become a colony of the modern financial system.”

It may not be, but this feels to me like the first time a European leader has referred to the “modern financial system” as being the ultimate enemy. Don’t expect it to be the last.

To read the whole text of Viktor Orban’s National Day speech please go to: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2312

President-elect, Vladimir Putin’s victory speech on March 4^th was short and, one might say, brutal. Of interest was his choice of venue, Manezhnaya Square, in the heart of Moscow. The square has a long history at the centre of Moscow life and is associated with the mass popular demonstrations following the fall of communism and the failed coup d’état. More recently in 2010 it was the venue for mass demonstrations of nationalism following the shooting of a Russian football fan by a migrant from North Caucasus; the chants that day were “Russia for Russians, Moscow for Muscovites”. (Russia is the most ethnically diverse of all nations).

Location, Location, Location

In speaking at Manezhnaya Square, Putin was speaking from the belly of Moscow, a location synonymous with nationalism and he was playing to the old fears:

“We have shown that our people are truly able to easily distinguish between the desire for progress and renewed political provocation that has only one objective – to destroy Russian sovereignty and usurp power.   The Russian people have now shown that in our country such choices and scenarios will not pass.  THEY SHALL NOT PASS.”

The final phrase has a martial quality.  It was not simply defiant.

Putin’s choice of venue, his language, his characterisation of the opposition, his description of the threat, do not speak to progress but old fears:

“We have shown indeed, that no one can enslave us. No one and nothing can enslave us.”

“Enslave” is not only a loaded word, it also an old world word. Even in his very langauge, Putin does not look forward to a new future.

Repetition works both ways

As already noted it was a short speech. Such that the use of repetition was especially marked.

For example:

“We won today, thanks to the overwhelming support of the overwhelming majority of our voter.”

The repetition of “overwhelming” provides emphasis but it is also heavy. The word is so obviously repeated to persuade. It is the same with  

“We won in an open and fair contest!  Thank you friends, thank you!   We won in an open and fair contest.”

Again, the repetition of “open” and fair contest” in these few words both stresses and undermines Putin’s point.

And at the close of the speech he repeats the promise he made at the beginning:

“I promised you that we would win.  We did. We won.”

Indeed that one word, “win” dominates the speech – conveying that it was all that mattered – but also perhaps “at any cost”?

Vladimir Putin began the speech in tears of gratitude. They were tears of sincerity. But laced through the words and technique and location of the speech was a sense of fear.

To read the full text of Vladimir Putin’s speech, please click: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2302

President Obama is among the greatest orators of his generation, yet he rarely uses classical rhetorical devices. That he began his recent speech to the United Auto Workers Conference by using the rhetorical device of anaphora – or repetition of a word or phrase at the start of a sentence – was worth taking note of.

“It’s unions like yours that fought for jobs and opportunity for generations of American workers.  It’s unions like yours that helped build the arsenal of democracy that defeated fascism and won World War II.  It’s unions like yours that forged the American middle class — that great engine of prosperity, the greatest that the world has ever known.”

Why does he use such a classic device, and in such a prominent place in the speech, right up front?

Making the sound bite stick

The first reason that Obama uses the anaphora is to introduce his big sound bite – “It’s unions like yours that forged the American middle class.”

This is the sound bite he is aiming for from the speech. And because it’s placed as the final repetition of three – he is giving it the best chance to be remembered and repeated.  Unions are meant to be blue collar but Obama has them in the good seats, with the middle class. As he later says of the jobs saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler:

“These jobs are worth more than just a paycheck.  They’re a source of pride.  They’re a ticket to a middle-class life that make it possible for you to own a home and raise kids and maybe send them — yes — to college.”

Being middle class represents the American dream for blue collar machinists – the apotheosis of which is – yes – sending the kids to college.

This is the dream and that Obama encapsulates in that sound bite: “It’s unions like yours that forged the American middle class.” This is the dream that Obama is offering his core voters. This is his election pitch.

Don’t mention the Unions

But there is another reason for the use of the anaphora at the start of the speech. The clue is that he does not use the word “union” again until the very end of the speech. So even though he sounds off like this is a speech about unions – it is not. The anaphora makes the word stick in the mind of his audience, but, in fact, the speech goes somewhere very different. It is a brilliant development of the word “work”, playing on its different meanings and connotations, in a bid to support his push for the Presidency.

America is Working

Of course “worker” is the word that allows Obama to avoid using the more politically charged term “union”, as in:

“You gave up some of your rights as workers.  Promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this industry — its workers, their families.  You want to talk about sacrifice?  You made sacrifices.”

And at other times he uses to simply mean labor:

“Building cars is tough work.”

or

“In my hometown at Ford’s Chicago Assembly where workers are building a new Explorer and selling it to dozens of countries around the world.”

But then he adds connotations and layers of meaning. He takes the positive values of work and workers to align them with what he calls the “American story”:

“America has the best workers in the world.  When the playing field is level, nobody will beat us.” 

And going on to say:

“The values that made this country great:  hard work and fair play, the chance to make it if you really try”.

He equates for his audience “work” and what makes America great. Moreover, “work” is what holds societies and generations together; it is a mythical essence:

“How many of you who’ve worked the assembly line had a father or a grandfather or a mother who worked on that same line?  How many of you have sons and daughters who said, you know, Mom, Dad, I’d like to work at the plant, too? 

As he builds up the layers of meaning around “work” and “worker” he creates a sort of halo around these words in the speech: “work” is America’s “mojo”, its secret to success.

Almost literally so – as Obama describes UAW member who won the lottery:

“He used some of his winnings to buy his wife the car that he builds because he’s really proud of his work.”

The worker as lottery winner! And what does he do his money: he spends it on his “work”.

But of course the ultimate vocation for the worker in election year is as voter. So when Obama says of the bail out of GM and Chrysler:

“I placed my bet on the American worker”,

there is also a sense that he is betting his Presidency on the “American worker” too.

Why else does he end the speech by saying:

“God bless you.  God bless the work you do ”?

To read the full text of President Obama’s speech to the UAW Conference click here: http://www.voicegig.com/view-speech/2289/