The application of classic technical speaking techniques was a significant factor in Barack Obama’s election to the US Presidency. This paper contrasts the effectiveness of his speaking style against that of Kevin Rudd in the Australian context.

This report will critically compare two their electoral acceptance speeches:

US President Elect Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech, 4^th November, 2008; and
Australian Prime Minister Elect Kevin Rudd’s Acceptance Speech, 24^th November, 2007.

Each of the speeches, at a high level, covers similar topics. This paper will review the arrangement of both speeches and use of rhetorical devices to engage and affect their respective audiences.

Arrangement

“Arrangement … concerns how one orders speech or writing” (Burton 2007).

To demonstrate simply each speech’s structure (see appendix: Allocation of lines to structural components) colours have been assigned to the identified topics as follows:

Speech Construction Elements by Colour

Figure 1: Speech Construction Elements by Colour

The two pictures below show section divisions line by line. It is apparent even from an initial review that Obama has a shorter and more structured speech. It has a consistent flow with no overlapping or restated topics and a significant investment in the start and close. Several sections are of the same length demonstrating deliberate allocation of time to those topics.

Breakdown of Obama Speech by Line

Figure 2: Breakdown of Obama Speech by Line

Rudd’s speech at the high level demonstrates less consistency in flow and very little time devoted to the introduction or close.

Breakdown of Rudd Speech by Line

Figure 3: Breakdown of Rudd Speech by Line

The second half of Rudd’s speech is particularly confused with sections being revisited. Additionally the ‘Uplifting Story’ intersperses ‘Specific Acknowledgement’ and ‘General Acknowledgement’ sections breaking the flow of the speech and muting audience reactions.

The length of sections is also inconsistent with over half the speech dedicated to ‘Inclusion of All People’ and the various acknowledgements.

Each of the speeches had a distinct pattern of rhetorical usage, which is shown below.

Obama Applause vs. Rhetorical Device Density

Figure 4: Obama Applause vs. Rhetorical Device Density

Rudd Applause vs. Rhetorical Device Density

Figure 5: Rudd Applause vs. Rhetorical Device Density

Start/Introduction

In Obama’s speech a strong rhetorical start has been crafted using the rule of three, an anaphora and appeals to a shared vision of America. It “recalls the past and speculates about the future while focussing on the present” (Brock et al. 1990) and includes the audience regardless of political alliance.

The Rudd speech begins with “Okay, guys” and then moves directly into accepting his opponents concession. Using lines 13 through 21 or 29 would have rectified this and brought the boisterous local audience under his control. While the partisan local audience was appreciative of his informality, this was a televised speech and did not convey strong leadership to the wider audience.

Accept Concession

In both speeches this was the second section. General usage indicates that conciliatory acknowledgement of the opponent is appropriate.

Obama addressed this with the use of minimal rhetoric. He acknowledged his opponents with several positive comments and finished in 5 lines, which constituted 4.4% of the speech.

Rudd used 11 lines acknowledging Howard. In terms of overall content this constituted 6.6% of the speech.

In this section of his speech Obama had a device density of 0.6 per line (the lowest in his speech) against Rudd’s 1.2 per line (the highest in his speech). This strong use of rhetoric by Rudd meant that other, more important sections, were comparatively lacking (see appendix: Density of Rhetorical Devices).

Inclusion of People (Bipartisan Gesture)

Both Obama and Rudd were involved in heavily divisive campaigns. These campaigns drew strong antagonism from both sides of politics. “… explicit appeals for unity are most common in addresses that follow divisive campaigns …” (Brock et al. 1990, p. 346) and both speakers took the opportunity to do so.

Both speakers allocated a section of their speech to moving away from partisan divisions.

For Obama this section was in the second half of his speech as he built to the close. Incidence of rhetorical devices was climbing at 2.1 devices per line.

This for Rudd however was overall the strongest point in his speech. This section had one of the highest incidences of rhetorical devices and the highest of moderate applause with significant strong applause. It was used in the first third of his speech and the relatively strong intensity makes the remainder of his speech somewhat anti-climactic by comparison.

Vision

It is important to “fuse past and future in present contemplation, affirm or praise the shared principles that will guide the incoming administration” (Brock et al. 1990).

In this section the speakers have similar content. They both refer to the issues that beset their respective countries and state their intent to address them.

Where the two vary is how the topics are communicated. Rudd for the most part simply lists the issues he will address, eight in total. Obama on the other hand uses the rule of three to start and then by relating additional points to ‘the people’ he again attempts to ‘unify the people’ (Brock et al. 1990, p. 345).

International Acknowledgement

As both countries have active roles in world affairs it is expected they provide a precursor to their foreign policy. It is appropriate with the US having a larger role in the international community that a more significant portion of the speech (8%) is dedicated than the Australian 4%.

Obama ensured this section of his speech carried a strong and memorable message. In doing so he extended his ‘political principles’(Brock et al. 1990, p. 345). This section has his second highest incidence of rhetoric (2.2 devices per line) making an extremely powerful statement.

Alternatively Rudd was conveying a message of retaining the status quo in international relations. This section, while short, had a relatively high incidence of devices (1.1 devices per line). The impact of these devices was lessened however as half of them were repeated use of “great” as an epithet. This generic use reduced the device’s emotional impact (Harris 2008).

Specific Acknowledgement

Obama addressed ‘Specific Acknowledgement’ directly following the ‘Concession Acceptance’. This allowed him to start increasing the speech’s emotional appeal. In thanking specific people that were known to his direct audience he was able to get both strong and moderate applause without having previously increased the emotive content.

Rudd tried to use the emotion and enthusiasm from the direct audience response to build to his close. This had several problems; firstly it ignored the wider audience who were the people he needed to reinforce his new status as the country’s elected leader. Secondly, an egalitarian Australian audience is likely to react most strongly to attempts at ‘unifying the people’ (Brock et al. 1990, p. 345) which was clearly demonstrated by the response to his ‘Inclusion of the people’ section. Thirdly this section was divided in two, which disrupted the flow. A final problem was the following sentence on line 151, “without family we are nothing”. This is problematic as it is divisive, many Australians have travelled by themselves to seek a better life in the country and increasingly Australians are living alone. While Rudd was rightly intending to reinforce his ‘political principles’ (Brock et al. 1990, p. 345) stating them in this fashion implied that many Australians “are nothing”.

General Acknowledgement

Recognition of groups, as with specific individuals, is expected.

Obama used this section to continue building momentum. The incidence of rhetorical devices stayed in the same region as ‘Specific Acknowledgement’.

Rudd separated this section into two components. The reason for this is not apparent and it detracts from the overall flow, as sections did not naturally lead one into the other. Both instances of this section had comparatively low densities of devices at 0.5 and 0.6 devices per line.

Linking Statement

On line 83 Rudd made a statement to link the two halves of his speech together. This indicates a lack of care in the crafting of the speech. It was followed by lower levels of applause indicating a break in his interaction with the direct audience.

Uplifting Story

Both speeches used uplifting stories. Their uses however, differed significantly.

In Obama’s speech there was a strong element of ‘unifying the people’ in particular and through the use of ‘memoria’ and “recollection of a shared past” (Brock et al. 1990, p. 344) ‘communal values’ where also reinforced.

In Figure 5 above it can be seen that the incidence of rhetoric drops. This is in part due to a statistical anomaly. In this instance all 21 lines were a single ‘exemplum’. The rhetorical depth of this section is therefore higher than the numbers indicate. Obama was building to his close here and this is reflected in the use of such a large rhetorical device.

Rudd attempted to reinforce ‘communal values’. He also acknowledged a group within his government. The story was only 10 lines long and showed a small decrease in device density. Combined with its disruptive placing and mixed message the story’s emotive effect was compromised.

Once again a divisive comment “others were prepared to cast you to one side” (line 106) worked against the strongly inclusive statements made earlier in the speech, this time seemingly in an effort to score cheap political points. Having just won the election, and previously devoted a significant part of the speech to reconciliation this seems not only pointless but counterproductive.

Commitment

It is the logical next step from stating a vision to defining when and how that vision will be implemented. Rudd has used this as the lead into his close, so it is analysed separately.

The intent of this section appears to be a call to action, against the advice of Cicero who states epideictic speaking is “to impress his ideas upon [the audience], without action as a goal” (Caplan 1954). It is also problematic in construction; lines 159-161 are an unbalanced list of three that is then increased to four through a joke on line 162. The final two lines have then lost significant momentum.

The end result is that leading into a very short close Rudd had almost no momentum and rhetorical device incidence continued its downward trend. He also reduced his ability to convey the gravitas associated with the leader of a country through the use of a joke.

Close

Here the speakers had their final opportunity to reinforce key points of their speeches.

Obama reinforced his unification of the people and rehearsal of communal values. He reached his highest rhetorical density at 3.4 devices per line and received high levels of applause.

Rudd issued an appeal, reduced his rhetorical density to 0.3 per line and combined with his previous loss of momentum received a moderate level of applause.

Summary

% of time per section

Figure 6: % of Time per Section

Obama’s speech was strong throughout. His build to the close started directly after the concession acceptance. This built up through increasing use of rhetoric, particularly his preferred devices.

Figure 7: Obama Incidence of Selected Rhetorical Devices

In an egalitarian society such as Australia, Rudd’s speech needed to be highly inclusive. He achieved this by putting high emphasis on elements of the speech that relate to ‘unifying the people’. The actual arrangement was problematic however, as a strong validation of his opponent was unpalatable to the direct audience and not conducive to presenting himself as the new leader. It was also less impactful due to several divisive comments. Additionally having the strongest elements of his speech in the initial 40% caused the remainder to be anti-climactic.

Conclusion

In conclusion both speakers delivered performances that shared similar goals and topics. Obama used rhetorical devices more effectively and consistently. Rudd’s speech gave an overall impression that most, if not all, of his rhetorical devices were functions of normal speech rather than crafted.

When compared with Obama’s speech the reason for Rudd’s seemingly early climax becomes more obvious. It is not that he used too high a density of devices early on but rather the lack of devices later. Initially they use a similar density however, as Obama started to build to his end, Rudd’s use of rhetorical devices became highly inconsistent. This again is an indication that Rudd did not deliberately use rhetorical devices.

Additionally while there was a careful crafting of Obama’s arrangement it appears that, with the possible exception of specific/general acknowledgements, the placing of various components was not part of an overall plan for Rudd.

Improvements

Both speeches could have been improved with more targeted arrangement.

Obama speaking to an American audience that is known to be highly parochial, and a direct audience that he knows are ardent supporters of his vision could have modified his order to use that to build strong momentum to his close.

Obama Original Applause with New Arrangement

Obama Original Applause and Arrangement

Figure 8: Obama Original Applause and Arrangement

Obama Original Applause with New Arrangement

Figure 9: Obama Original Applause with New Arrangement

With an uplifting story that was tied strongly to the vision it is likely that the close applause would have been considerably longer.

Rudd speaking to Australians could have taken much stronger advantage of the country’s egalitarian values. Changing only structure we see the following.

Rudd Original Applause and Arrangement

Figure 10: Rudd Original Applause and Arrangement

Rudd Original Applause with New Arrangement

Figure 11: Rudd Original Applause with New Arrangement

Even without changing the density of rhetorical devices a marked difference in closing applause can be seen. If Rudd combined the changes with a stronger use of classical speech writing techniques the reception would have been significantly improved.