Went out to a political event yesterday evening and heard a friend give his stump speech. I had been surprised at another candidate's event a month or so back when someone said my friend was a great public servant but not a great candidate because he didn't "connect" with voters.
It's hard to give the same speech night after night and keep it fresh. One thing which struck me last night was the absence of a solid micro-macro tie in. A staple to this kind of speaking (also sermons) is the anecdote about one individual which is extrapolated to the big theme. This makes the whole thing relatable for the listener. I would think that varying that individual from day to day or perhaps week to week or else month to month, would help keep the whole thing fresh. "Yesterday in Kinston I was talking to a young man who said that blah blah blah, and it reminded me..."
I know this has got to be hard, perhaps nigh onto impossible when you are racing from event to event. But that's what struck me. I didn't hear it. Maybe I had spaced out, but I don't think so.
2 comments:
A sad fact about human nature is that political charisma doesn't correlate much with public worth.
During 2004, I went to a fundraiser for Wesley Clark. This was one of the great hopes to unseat Bush. Public service, military record, straight as an arrow. Wrote a book.
We were all excited to see him but you could feel the deflation in the room: this dude? It was a totally unfair feeling, I don't know what I was expecting, but it was a real feeling and Clark flamed out. All the ads couldn't manufacture the human precondition for Weberian charismatic leadership.
When you see it, though, you see it. . . . and when that charisma belongs to a good competent public servant. . . then blessed is the land.
Well I never saw Wesley Clark so that's not the kind of situation I'm talking about. My friend by no means bad, but perhaps there's room for improvement! We can all get better.
Post a Comment