The Classical Origins of the Modern Political Speech

My first recollection of a political speech can be summed-up in a sound bite: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. I didn’t hear it firsthand, I’m too young for that. I’m not sure where I heard it but it lingers in my mind.

Examples of how political speeches have influenced our experiences are myriad; from the aggressive, dictatorial rhetoric in the early half of the 20th century, to the inspirational, uplifting rhetoric of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. The era of managing by dictate ended and was replaced by an era of managing by inspiration. Indeed, rhetoric has filtered through our society in many ways: from motivating employees at management seminars, to treating patients in psychiatric wards. Much of what is known today of speech was first discovered by the ancient Greeks.

The study of rhetoric by the ancient Greeks was primarily intended to perfect speech for use in the law courts. A rhetor was a man who could advise on the best way to present a legal case. The connection between law and rhetoric probably explains why most politicians were trained as lawyers.

Rhetoric is defined as “the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, or, language with a persuasive or impressive effect, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content”.

Classical rhetoric was generally broken-down into two main areas: the principles of eloquence, (like our modern-day English or creative writing), and the art of persuasion. Delivery and charm were very important ingredients, as they are now.

The three types of rhetoric are: judicial / forensic, the type used in law; deliberative, used in government for policy; and demonstrative, the type used in rallies and preaching. Tony Blair was one politician who could successfully utilize all three in his speeches, whilst Martin Luther King epitomised demonstrative speaking.

What are the keys to a successful speech? Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) said that: “The greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor”. A metaphor establishes a comparison between two things, the purpose of which is to evoke an image. Ronald Reagan often described America as a “beacon” to the rest of the world. However, when war is discussed, there is a reversal in the process of metaphor attribution. For example, phrases like “striking” “collateral damage” and “mopping-up” are used. During Gulf War II, Blair often used the word “engaged” to describe attacks on Iraq. Such phraseology is used to avoid the creation of images, or, to give the listener a more acceptable image of events.