data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/07537/0753741c7092de7891aeae72ddddbfe866691465" alt=""
My score this time around is based almost entirely on delivery. I have to confess that I have quit paying much attention to the content of State of the Union addresses, because they are usually little more than forgettable laundry lists of unrealistic proposals.
Here are my delivery observations:
He is better than he used to be. He used to really herky-jerky. It's still there, but not as pronounced. There were brief moments of clarity and gravity, glimpses of cadence and intensity; but overall the speech was incredibly uneven.
He is uncomfortable in the rostrum. This guy does not want to be there. I'm not talking about the presidency, he very much wants to be there. But he is not an orator, and these events are not pleasant for him. He does not enjoy the spoken word.
The speech is not his. He didn't write it; but more importantly, he has never owned it. Presidents don't write their own speeches anymore, of course, but some go to great lengths to make the speech theirs (see Reagan and Clinton). This is a speech assembled by bureaucrats that could never find its rhythm. He is anchored to the teleprompters. He turns his head before his eyes are ready to leave the security of the plexiglass manuscript. Watch him when he finishes a phrase that invites applause. He doesn't lean into it, because it doesn't belong to him. He is not offering something of himself to his audience, he is simply serving as a vehicle for a broad set of ideas. When he finishes those phrases, and the applause begins, he appears relieved that it is over for a few seconds. Eager speakers get impatient with the applause because they want to get on to the really good stuff.
The old smugness is still there. Again, not as bad as before, but the smirk and wink business persists. Here's one thing that will always prevent him from appearing to be a statesman or grand orator: opposition pisses him off, and it shows. He has no respect for disagreement. This hardly makes him unique, but he allows it to color his rhetoric. It visibly disturbs him when people don't stand to applaud for him and his ideas. Consequently, when he talks about bipartisanship and unified goals, it all falls flat.
I swear if I hear him say, "nucular" one more time, I may resign from the assiociation of English-speaking humans.
His handlers are not getting him ready. Maybe that's as good as it can get, but the best it can get is a C- from me.
Why do I care? Because speech matters. Sure, policies and actions are more important, but when you are the Chief Orator, the public and history look to you to shape the way we talk about things of importance. When you reveal in your rhetoric that you have no tolerance for dissent, and that any effort you make toward dialogue is little more than a chimera of the worst order, you do a disservice to all who aspire to democracy.
Oh, by the way, please save us the irony of eulogizing Coretta Scott King in the same speech that you declare the rightward shift of the Supreme Court.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1955c/1955cde540243a790204f9e543d03bfdba6ca461" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad525/ad5255f08a5cabf60813d4c2b951e2f6a8f02e12" alt=""