Public speaking skills have long been a chief determinant of whom Americans elect as president. But should they be?
With the presidential primary season clomping toward its close, voters readying themselves for the general election must ask: Do effective communicators necessarily make effective commanders in chief?
The relationship between oratory and leadership is well-established. From
Pericles to
Isocrates,
Demosthenes to
Cicero, citizens have used communication skills as a shorthand indicator of leadership potential. So much so that U.S. presidential elections sometimes seem little more than an extended public speaking competition.
But should a candidate's cadence, gestures and emotion-laden storytelling be on par with, say, leadership experience, seasoned judgment and prior testing under fire? Or is rhetorical skill a prerequisite of presidential leadership?
"Historically speaking, there seems to be a correlation between those presidents we think of as great communicators and those who are considered successful presidents," says Baylor University speech communication professor Martin J. Medhurst, an expert on presidential rhetoric.
'You motivate through emotion'
Indeed, examples abound.
Abraham Lincoln guided us through the Civil War.
Teddy Roosevelt expanded U.S. influence around the world.
Franklin Roosevelt led America through the Great Depression and World War II.
John Kennedy inspired a generation to public service.
Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Clearly these weren't America's only great communicators. But as Medhurst notes, "It is easy to see that communication skills are an important part of leadership."
To be sure, exceptions exist. A rhetorically gifted president such as John Quincy Adams, whose nickname was
"Old Man Eloquent," turned out to be a disappointing commander in chief. Nevertheless, Adams' post-presidency included
17 years in the House marked by moments of legislative and oratorical brilliance. His
anti-slavery arguments would later become the foundation of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Even so, in our YouTube-driven digital age, candidates who can motivate voters to tap the touchscreen in their favor possess a clear advantage. As most presidential strategists contend, emotion and persuasion are often twinned. "You persuade through reason, but you motivate through emotion," says Dick Wirthlin, Reagan's political strategist and pollster. But as Wirthlin and others are quick to point out, would-be presidents must also explain their policy prescriptions in concrete terms, not mere abstractions.
McCain vs. Clinton vs. Obama
So where do Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fall on the communication continuum?
McCain's war hero ethos is embedded in his speaking style. Because of the injuries he suffered after his plane went down and the ensuing beatings he received over five years of torture, he
cannot raise his arms above shoulder height when gesturing or waving. The result for those who know is one of strength. For those who don't, McCain's podium presence can seem stiff and stilted.
Clinton's technocratic command of policy ripples through her speeches. And in moments such as the now famous "crying episodes," voters have seen
flashes of warmth that those closest to her say typifies her private persona. Whether that human touch emerges on the rostrum before the all-important
Texas and Ohio primaries remains to be seen.
Much has been written and said about Obama's ubiquitous message of "hope" and oratorical flights of fancy.
Critics contend he is a cotton-candy communicator long on saccharin speeches and short on experience. His platform skills are real, but so is McCain's gravitas. The matchup would be one for the ages.
Come November, voters will desire a president whose communication embodies style and substance. The candidate who can fuse the two is hard-wired to win the White House.
Wynton C. Hall is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author, most recently, of The Right Words: Great Republican Speeches that Shaped History.