Communications

If you can believe the scientists, nearly every animal species in our world has developed the art of communications by various means and to one extent or another. For the most part this communicating is a method of announcing danger, the availability of food, attracting a potential mate, or just telling the kids it’s time to come home. Nor does it seem that communications requires a highly developed intelligence either, as a few species of plants appear to have the ability of informing others of their species that they are under attack by insect pests, or so the claim is made. (I can just imagine the language around our Lodgepole jumbles when the Pine Beetles appear!) As the level of intelligence increases, the degree of communication appears to increase as well, into the ability of conveying a vast amount of abstract information along with the more basic data.

Imagine for a moment what might have happened to humanity, without the ability to transfer information between individuals. Someone might discover that cooking greatly improves the taste of food, but being unable to communicate, no one else can learn that fact by other than trial and error. Another individual designs a superior club, but no one else can take advantage of that design except by eventually copying it. Things could get real hectic in a hurry when a Sabertooth Tiger suddenly appears on the scene, and you can’t tell the kids to get up in a tree! Without the wondrous ability to communicate, I rather doubt that humanity would have lasted very long. Still, at the higher levels I’ll sometimes question our ability to communicate abstract thoughts. I’ll often read a technical paper, and when I’m finished with all the big words, double talk, and self congratulations, I find myself asking just what it was that the author was attempting to get across. Try actually listening to a political speech sometime, and making any sense of what was said!

A couple of hundred years ago, Americans were pretty much all on the same wavelength and the politicians usually didn’t have much trouble getting their point across to the voters. The contents of a speech were usually printed in the newspapers, everyone could read that speech at their leisure, and generally figure out just where the speaker stood. As time passed and technology changed the way we live, effective communications became an ability that seems to have fallen by the wayside, at least at the state and national level of politics.

The power of speech, both what is said and how it is spoken — is crucially important in politics. How should a President talk? George Washington never spoke publicly for more than ten minutes because of the pain caused by his false teeth, yet his lofty rhetoric established the presidency as a dignified institution. Thomas Jefferson was probably the most brilliant man in the history of American politics, and one of our better presidents, but he was such a poor public speaker that he instituted the century long tradition of sending the State of the Union message to Congress in the form of a letter! In the twentieth century, the development of modern media brought an end to the era of political oratory. A collection of sound bites soon took the place of the lengthy speeches that had once been fully developed arguments.

Like him or not, Franklin D. Roosevelt had a knack of explaining his goals and how he meant to go about reaching them to the American people. By way of his “Fireside chats”, most citizens felt he was speaking directly to them and explaining things in words they could readily understand. With his ability to communicate effectively, Roosevelt was able to convince the American people (or at least most of them) to support his “New Deal” programs, his “Arsenal of Democracy” concept, and even to supporting the violation of the neutrality laws as we joined Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic prior to America’s entry into WW II. Harry Truman’s speeches were terribly stilted until he threw away the script and talked in his normally combative “Give ‘em Hell Harry” style. He didn’t have Roosevelt’s polished speaking skills, but he spoke clearly and plainly to the American people, much more effectively than the media (or Thomas Dewey for that matter) would have thought possible. Ronald Reagan was the “great communicator” in our history, who’s speaking style and skills always seemed to connect with the American people.

Lyndon Johnson could speak quite clearly and plainly when he so wished, but he was a very poor communicator. The loss of the Vietnam War can be laid at his feet, as neither he nor his speechwriters were ever able to find the words explaining to the American public just why we were engaged in Vietnam, and why the war was important to our nation. Jimmy Carter wasn’t much of a public speaker either. President Bush the younger stumbles a lot in his speeches much to the mirth of the democrats, but much more seriously he has a similar problem to that of LBJ, his inability to effectively explaining the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to the American public.

The speaking skills of this year's presidential candidates are just one of the factors that will affect the election’s outcome. Barack Obama is tall, self-assured and photogenic, with the gift of oratory. He has a polished speaking manner, a smooth delivery, and a warm, friendly demeanor. With Obama, there’s no question about his style, but rather it’s the substance of his talks that bother so many people. While John McCain may never become a motivational speaker, his speaking style affects audiences in a different way. His strength of character, experience and authenticity show through, while his town-hall style allows him to demonstrate his judgment, depth of knowledge and solid understanding of crucial issues. And to me, content is always more important than style.

Obama’s speeches are somewhat reminiscent of an evangelist speaking from the mountaintop. His rhetoric and call for change strikes a cord with those lofty thinkers who believe they have all the answers and could save the world if only they were in charge. John McCain sounds more like a military leader briefing his troops, with his plain speaking and “nuts-and-bolts” proposals appealing more to the down-to-earth folks who will worry about solving the world’s problems, after they’re reasonably sure they can feed the kids, put gas in the family flivver, and avoid a confrontation with the mortgage company.