The candidate’s speech: presidential candidates lacking rhetorical eloquence

Shane Wade
Opinion Editor

By virtue of living in a free country, we must tolerate that which we might consider pure idiocy or symptoms of a mind gone mad. But freedom of speech does not free us from the responsibility of being as critical as necessary of speech that offends us.

To that end, I feel it necessary to expound on the fact that what an individual says while campaigning for the highest of public offices and how they say it matters immensely. While that may seem obvious to some, a few of this year’s Republican candidates have failed to exhibit a key ability held by past presidents: rhetorical eloquence.

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama exemplifies what a president should sound like when he speaks: He’s articulate, professional and appropriately intricate. That’s part of the multitude of reasons he was elected president back in 2008. Regardless of how you feel about him politically, it’s a breathe of fresh air to hear the President of the United States able to clearly enunciate words and properly pronounce ‘nuclear.’

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for some of the leading Republican presidential candidates. To her credit, Michele Bachmann is the type of down-to-earth politician that fires up her base with her frankness and plain colloquialisms which most Americans find familiar. It’s language with which they are familiar, but unimpressed. Call me a latté liberal intellectualist, but I don’t wish to hear a presidential candidate making statements like “we are the king daddy dogs when it comes to energy” like Bachmann said last week, or referring to climate change as an environmentalist hoax and declaring her willingness to drill in the Everglades.

Bachmann isn’t the only offender; the veiled threat made by Gov. Rick Perry to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as well as his numerous comments damning “the Fed” isn’t exactly kosher for presidential speech.

When the primary reason you’re making news is because of perceived gaffs, controversial statements like calling social security a “monstrous lie,” and flip-flopping on your political stances, it does not bring out a sense of confidence in the American voter; consistency in policy and confidence in prior statements is key.

Honestly, it’s a nice change of pace when we’re able to hear politicians talk informally. Albeit off record, Obama’s calling Kanye West a “jackass” (in reference to his literal upstaging of Taylor Swift at the VMAs in 2009) was one of the truest statements I’d ever heard a president say. And while I would greatly enjoy such frankness extended over a number of other topics, it would also be inappropriate.

I’m not making an argument in favor of political correctness, but rather an argument in favor of correctness in politics. Intelligent, global leaders don’t speak in a folksy manner; to do such a thing would be a direct affront to the intelligence of their audience and representatives.

Americans need to recognize that the ability to speak formally, with practiced excellence, contributes to the power of the office of the president. If presidential candidates can’t provide ample proof of the ability to speak masterfully on a national stage, we ought to be hesitant when considering them in the voting booth.