Guilfoyle, in other words, gave a standard, predictable old-time political speech. Her speech was completely awful, but let’s talk about why awfulness is exactly her point. If her despicable speech failed politically – and I’m not sure that it did – it’s only because she didn’t adapt to the new media environment. We should all hope, however, that speeches like hers disappear forever.
Old-Time Political Speeches
The old-time political speeches were nothing to boast about. They were raucous, unreasonable, angry appeals to the audience’s preconceived opinions. Albert J. Beveridge, a Republican senator of the late 19th and early 20th century, wrote a wonderful old book about public speaking. He explained the post-Civil War speeches that he heard as a child:
“There was a Republican gathering in our Republican grove. The speaker was a well-known politician of the period and a typical post-war stump-speaker, who grew more furious at ‘the rebels’ as the war receded in time. . . .
“The speaker,... Threw off his coat and vest, tore his collar and tie from his neck, replaced them with a red bandanna handkerchief which made him look more militant than ever, ran his fingers through his mane and began:
“‘Comrades!... Who murdered our comrades? Rebels! Democrats! (Tremendous cheering....) ‘Who tried to shoot the Stars and Stripes from the heavens? Rebels! Democrats!’ So the orator in a crimson torrent raged on....’”The crowd then sang “Marching through Georgia” and, Beveridge explained, “all were as happy as they were patriotic.”
The next week, invited by a Democratic friend, he went to hear a Democratic speaker in the Democrats grove. It turned out to be the same. Beveridge explains:
“As to violent delivery, exaggerated statement, and lack of argument, the Democratic speech was identical with the Republican speech I had heard a few days earlier – always denunciation, only the thesis was reversed. We Republicans, it seemed, were rascals, scoundrels, and ought to be in jail, every last one of us. Again there was the acrobatic rage of the speaker, again the shedding of garments, again the lurid adjectives, again the senseless cheering....”
Beveridge goes on to explain that these old-time political speeches, with their fury and invective, offered nothing of value to anyone. Indeed, he wrote his book to encourage speakers to give reasoned, productive speeches that could help people make good decisions.
Kimberly Guilfoyle, an Old-Time Political Speaker?
Let’s get one thing clear: the old-time political speakers that Beveridge described were despicable and it would be great if we could leave them in the past. However, the 2020 Republican National Convention speakers so far are busy fear-mongering, and Guilfoyle knew how to monger fear.
Her wild, irrational attacks started in her second paragraph, as she warned of the dangerous consequences of Democratic victory:
Kimberly Guilfoyle, an Old-Time Political Speaker?
Let’s get one thing clear: the old-time political speakers that Beveridge described were despicable and it would be great if we could leave them in the past. However, the 2020 Republican National Convention speakers so far are busy fear-mongering, and Guilfoyle knew how to monger fear.
Her wild, irrational attacks started in her second paragraph, as she warned of the dangerous consequences of Democratic victory:
“Biden, Harris, and the rest of the Socialists will fundamentally change this nation. They want open borders, closed schools, dangerous amnesty, and will selfishly send your jobs back to China while they get rich. They will defund, dismantle, and destroy America’s law enforcement. When you are in trouble and need police, don’t count on the Democrats.” Shortly after, she continued to warn of the destruction the Democrats would cause:
“Rioters must not be allowed to destroy our cities. Human sex, drug traffickers should not be allowed to cross our border. The same socialist policies which destroyed places like Cuba and Venezuela must not take root in our cities and our schools.”After praising President Trump, she warned her audience not to let Democrats fool anyone:
“Don’t let them step on you. Don’t let them destroy your families, your lives, and your future. Don’t let them kill future generations because they told you and brainwashed you and fed you lies that you weren’t good enough.”
“Kill your future generations?” Oh, my goodness!
Those were obviously wild exaggerations. For example, when President Donald Trump tried to tell Fox News’ Chris Wallace that Joe Biden wanted to defund the police, Wallace took issue, whereupon Trump was unable to find any support for his wild accusations. Wallace chuckled at the president’s lack of knowledge and preparation.
Nevertheless, Guilfoyle screamed the same accusation straight into the camera. However, an old-time political speaker like Guilfoyle was not about to let some journalist or fact-checker interfere with her ability to spread absurd accusations with no hint of proof or argument.
Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Old-Time Nonverbal Communication
Guilfoyle’s speech was almost a parody of Beveridge’s old-time speeches.
First her entrance: with patriotic music blaring, Guilfoyle marched onto a stage festooned with American flags, wearing a bright red dress.
Second her vocal style: she started her speech by yelling in a loud, nasal voice with an immoible smile pasted on her face. As the speech continued, she began to wave her arms and scream at the top of her lungs. Social media had a field day making fun of her frantic presentation.
Albert J. Beveridge could have predicted all of this.
Why In the World?
If you listen to the political pundits on television, or read the ever-so-somber political analyses in newspapers, you might think that the purpose of the election campaign is to help people choose the president. That’s ridiculous. Almost all voters have already picked their favorite president. The Republicans like Trump, and the Democrats are going for Biden. Few of them will change. Political communication specialists have known since the 1948 Elmira, New York election study that party loyalty is the main predictor of how people will vote. Socio-economic status and ethnicity play a small part, as well. Almost nothing the candidates can do or say will change votes from one party to another.
Consider this analogy: if you are a student at Virginia’s Oakton High School, and your team is playing the big game against Fairfax High School, is somebody going to persuade you that Fairfax is the more worthy team? Are you going to change your loyalty and root for Fairfax? Don’t be silly. People often compare politics to sports, and, well, there you go. Just as Republicans in Indiana used to have their own hickory grove for political speeches, while the Democrats had their own grove, Republicans today have Fox News and Democrats can listen to CNN.
Kimberly Guilfoyle Seemed Confused about Her Parents
Since Trump is often accused of being harsh toward immigrants, Guilfoyle countered by boasting of her family's own immigrant status:
“As a first-generation American, I know how dangerous their Socialist agenda is. My mother, Mercedes, was a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. My father, also an immigrant, came to this nation in pursuit of the American Dream.” Social media had a field day with that. Guilfoyle’s mother, who wase born in Puerto Rico, is a natural-born United States citizen. She did not need to go through immigration to come to the United States. She just needed to get on a boat or plane, get a job, and settle down. The speaker was most certainly not a first-generation American as she falsely claimed. Guilfoyle's supporters have been busy trying to explain what she “really” meant. Good luck with that.
Conclusion
The old-time political speaking was well-adapted to a hickory grove full of farmers who championed their one side. I’m not sure that it works in the new media age at an online convention. A delivery style that, although despicable, might have worked in the old setting seems out of place on a computer screen.
There's nothing wrong with warning voters that a political candidate or political party is dangerous. Such warnings, however, should be accompanied by credible research and reasoned argument. To make wild, irrational accusations is demagoguery, not leadership. Guilfoyle presented no facts; she just accused Democrats of doing evil things.
Albert J. Beveridge ridiculed the old-time political speaking. He thought that America could do better. Evidently, however, Republicans think they can win the 2020 election with old-time political speaking. Maybe the old-time political speaking will work again. But the old-time political speaking, which was based on anger, hatred, and prejudice, needs to be buried in the past with its coffin nailed down tight.
Earlier Post: Did Patrick Henry Warn Us about Donald Trump?
Thank you to the good people at rev.com for, once again, quickly preparing an accurate transcript of the speaker's remarks as delivered.
Those were obviously wild exaggerations. For example, when President Donald Trump tried to tell Fox News’ Chris Wallace that Joe Biden wanted to defund the police, Wallace took issue, whereupon Trump was unable to find any support for his wild accusations. Wallace chuckled at the president’s lack of knowledge and preparation.
Nevertheless, Guilfoyle screamed the same accusation straight into the camera. However, an old-time political speaker like Guilfoyle was not about to let some journalist or fact-checker interfere with her ability to spread absurd accusations with no hint of proof or argument.
Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Old-Time Nonverbal Communication
Guilfoyle’s speech was almost a parody of Beveridge’s old-time speeches.
First her entrance: with patriotic music blaring, Guilfoyle marched onto a stage festooned with American flags, wearing a bright red dress.
Second her vocal style: she started her speech by yelling in a loud, nasal voice with an immoible smile pasted on her face. As the speech continued, she began to wave her arms and scream at the top of her lungs. Social media had a field day making fun of her frantic presentation.
Albert J. Beveridge could have predicted all of this.
Why In the World?
If you listen to the political pundits on television, or read the ever-so-somber political analyses in newspapers, you might think that the purpose of the election campaign is to help people choose the president. That’s ridiculous. Almost all voters have already picked their favorite president. The Republicans like Trump, and the Democrats are going for Biden. Few of them will change. Political communication specialists have known since the 1948 Elmira, New York election study that party loyalty is the main predictor of how people will vote. Socio-economic status and ethnicity play a small part, as well. Almost nothing the candidates can do or say will change votes from one party to another.
Consider this analogy: if you are a student at Virginia’s Oakton High School, and your team is playing the big game against Fairfax High School, is somebody going to persuade you that Fairfax is the more worthy team? Are you going to change your loyalty and root for Fairfax? Don’t be silly. People often compare politics to sports, and, well, there you go. Just as Republicans in Indiana used to have their own hickory grove for political speeches, while the Democrats had their own grove, Republicans today have Fox News and Democrats can listen to CNN.
Kimberly Guilfoyle Seemed Confused about Her Parents
Since Trump is often accused of being harsh toward immigrants, Guilfoyle countered by boasting of her family's own immigrant status:
“As a first-generation American, I know how dangerous their Socialist agenda is. My mother, Mercedes, was a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. My father, also an immigrant, came to this nation in pursuit of the American Dream.” Social media had a field day with that. Guilfoyle’s mother, who wase born in Puerto Rico, is a natural-born United States citizen. She did not need to go through immigration to come to the United States. She just needed to get on a boat or plane, get a job, and settle down. The speaker was most certainly not a first-generation American as she falsely claimed. Guilfoyle's supporters have been busy trying to explain what she “really” meant. Good luck with that.
Conclusion
The old-time political speaking was well-adapted to a hickory grove full of farmers who championed their one side. I’m not sure that it works in the new media age at an online convention. A delivery style that, although despicable, might have worked in the old setting seems out of place on a computer screen.
There's nothing wrong with warning voters that a political candidate or political party is dangerous. Such warnings, however, should be accompanied by credible research and reasoned argument. To make wild, irrational accusations is demagoguery, not leadership. Guilfoyle presented no facts; she just accused Democrats of doing evil things.
Albert J. Beveridge ridiculed the old-time political speaking. He thought that America could do better. Evidently, however, Republicans think they can win the 2020 election with old-time political speaking. Maybe the old-time political speaking will work again. But the old-time political speaking, which was based on anger, hatred, and prejudice, needs to be buried in the past with its coffin nailed down tight.
Earlier Post: Did Patrick Henry Warn Us about Donald Trump?
Thank you to the good people at rev.com for, once again, quickly preparing an accurate transcript of the speaker's remarks as delivered.
No comments:
Post a Comment