Kamala Harris Acceptance Speech at the Virtual DNC Convention: Breaking Ground with Caution

Kamala Harris

As much as anything, I think that Kamala Harris did not want to give a memorable speech last night. Instead, she gave a safe speech. 

Kamala Harris’ speech at the virtual Democratic National Convention broke ground because of who she was. Her presence was dramatic in itself. After all, she is the first minority woman nominated by a major party to be Vice President of the United States. Harris’ presentation was scripted, cautious, and accessible. The Democrats’ convention goal seems to be to show that they are the sober, careful party that can heal the nation and restore order. Harris reached out to all Americans, while, at the same time, touching base with the traditional Democratic Party  voters.

Harris' Theme

Harris’ theme was “equality, liberty, and justice for all.” Her point was to include everyone. The American flags arrayed behind her reinforced that she was taking heart from those Jeffersonian values. She stated that thesis right off:

“That I am here tonight is a testament to the dedication of generations before me. Women and men who believed so fiercely in the promise of equality, liberty, and justice for all.”  

She started talking about women voters, especially Black women voters. She jumped into the the 19^th  Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote: 

“This week marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment. And we celebrate the women who fought for that right.

"Yet so many of the Black women who helped secure that victory were still prohibited from voting, long after its ratification.

"But they were undeterred.

"Without fanfare or recognition, they organized, testified, rallied, marched, and fought—not just for their vote, but for a seat at the table. These women and the generations that followed worked to make democracy and opportunity real in the lives of all of us who followed.” 

Harris then mentioned several female heroes of the Civil Rights movement: “Mary Church Terrell and Mary McCleod Bethune. Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash. Constance Baker Motley and Shirley Chisholm.”

Harris told inspiring family stories and mentioned her South Asian heritage. This was important in two ways: first, she noted the historic fact of her nomination, while, at the same time, she headed off the ongoing racist smears about her ethnic background. 

Continuing the theme of inclusiveness, she noted “structural racism,”  which she said caused these evils: 

“...inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation.

“The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system.

“This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other.

“And let's be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We've gotta do the work.”

Calling racism “this virus,” she drew attention about the coronavirus without mentioning it. Harris also made an implied dig against President Trump’s sexual proclivities when she reviewed her career as a prosecuting attorney: 

“I've fought for children, and survivors of sexual assault. I've fought against transnational gangs. I took on the biggest banks, and helped take down one of the biggest for-profit colleges.

“I know a predator when I see one.”

 “Predator?” Oops. Can't miss that one. 

Harris repeatedly emphasized voting, for example:

“People of all ages and colors and creeds who are, yes, taking to the streets, and also persuading our family members, rallying our friends, organizing our neighbors, and getting out the vote.

“And we've shown that, when we vote, we expand access to health care, expand access to the ballot box, and ensure that more working families can make a decent living.” 

She was right about that. The ballot box is what matters in our political system.

Language Style 

First, unlike the intellectual speeches we heard from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Harris’ carefully-scripted speech was accessible. Her speech ran between the sixth and seventh grade level on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level measurement. Since not all voters are highly educated, Harris and her speechwriters were wise to tone down the big words. 

Earlier Post: Did Bernie Sanders Talk over People's Heads at the 2020 Democratic Convention?

Second, although Harris’ speech was more readable than Sanders’, it was not totally listenable. The text still reads like an essay, not like a speech in oral style. Although Harris' rich, pleasant voice was expressive and personable, it was still obvious that she was reading. Some speakers can read a speech and sound conversational. Harris isn’t good at that. 

Consider, for example, this stilted sentence from her speech: 

“That's the vision that our parents and grandparents fought for. The vision that made my own life possible. The vision that makes the American promise—for all its complexities and imperfections—a promise worth fighting for.” 

Does anyone talk like that? Of course not. Does anyone, even in a formal meeting, say things like “for all its complexities and imperfections – a promise worth fighting for?” You know that they don’t. No one does. That’s written style, not oral style. The sentence twists too many ways to sound good out loud. 

Finally – and here comes one of my pet peeves – no one should ever begin a public speech by saying something so trite as, “It is truly an honor to be speaking with you.” Stale. Overused. Wordy. Hackneyed. If, heaven forbid, I were ever to run for public office, I would fire any speechwriter who wrote something like, “It is truly an honor…” Ny friend and colleague, Professor David Ritchey, said that when you use an adverb, the reason is that you’re using the wrong verb.  Furthermore, “truly” is one of the English language’s worst adverbs. It sounds fine in the King James Bible, but nowhere else. If you want to say something true, just say it. Don’t remind people that it’s true by saying "truly." Good speakers always choose the opening sentence with care, and no careful speaker should start by saying, “It is truly . . .”  

In other words, as my high school music teacher said, you need to begin and end well. The audience won’t care if you mess up in the middle, but they do notice a bad beginning or ending. 

To give her credit, Harris' ending gave a dramatic call to action. She said that actions count more than words:

"And we will tell them. We will tell them, not just how we felt.

"We will tell them what we did."

Conclusion

Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech reached out to a broad group of Democratic voters, encouraged people to vote, and attacked Donald Trump. She mostly tried not to be polarizing. Although her personable delivery helped, her speech was stilted, which is bad, but safe and inclusive, which is what she wanted. 

Presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks tonight. His job is to be safe and memorable. Let's see what happens! 

Image: US Senate photo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Made Her Convention Debut Last Night

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Democratic firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivered a brief speech – less than two minutes – last night at the online Democratic National Convention. Some people griped that she deserved a longer time, but for such an inexperienced politician to get speaking time at all is an honor. She nominated Bernie Sanders for the presidency, a procedural move that was required by the convention rules. Although Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez both now support Joe Biden, the Convention was required to place Sanders' name in nomination because he had more than 1,000 pledged delegates, and Sanders requested Ocasio-Cortez to speak for him. 

Ocasio-Cortez' straightforward purpose was to reinforce the liberal wing’s agenda. Toward that end, she repeated language similar to what Bernie Sanders said in his convention speech. Her opening included a Spanish word, presumably to insist to her listeners that the Democratic Party stands for inclusiveness: 

“Good evening, ​bienvenidos​, and thank you to everyone here today endeavoring towards a better, more just future for our country and our world.”

She then flowed out a lengthy, jargon-filled sentence that summarized the liberal agenda. “Guaranteed healthcare” and guaranteed higher education are basic to Sanders’ agenda:

 “In fidelity and gratitude to a mass people's movement working to establish 21st century social, economic, and human rights, including guaranteed health care, higher education, living wages, and labor rights for all people in the United States; a movement striving to recognize and repair the wounds of racial injustice, colonization, misogyny, and homophobia, and to propose and build reimagined systems of immigration and foreign policy that turn away from the violence and xenophobia of our past; a movement that realizes the unsustainable brutality of an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few at the expense of long-term stability for the many, and who organized an historic, grassroots campaign to reclaim our democracy.”

Ocasio-Cortez’ complaint about “the unsustainable brutality of an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few at the expense of long-term stability for the many” echoes standard Democratic Party agenda items. Even so, her language was more vivid than what we usually hear: “unsustainable brutality,” and “explosive inequalities.” 

Like Sanders, she spoke in language most accessible to a highly-educated audience. Unlike most politicians, however, she presented herself with a simple, conversational delivery style, using plenty of expressive vocal variety. She adapted better than most to the online format. This is no surprise, given her reputation for excellence in social media. 

Earlier Post: Did Bernie Sanders Speak over People's Heads? 

Many of the speakers at this virtual convention spoke from their homes, using normal household objects as backdrops. In contrast, Ocasio-Cortez spoke in front of an array of American flags. In part, the flags sent a nonverbal message that she stood for the United States. This is important, considering her opponents’ tendency to accuse her of being un-American. It also conveyed her message that the United States is inclusive, and that the flag does not just belong to White people. 

Earlier Post: Ocasio-Cortez' Short Speech in Congress Turned the Tables

I'm sure that the Democratic leadership does not want to lose its notoriously fickle liberal wing that supports Bernie Sanders. In this speech, Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t really trying to persuade people; she just laid out an agenda. The speech itself was obviously prerecorded and carefully vetted. The leadership may have been worried that she would uncork, but I don’t think she gave them anything to worry about. And her very presence on the online platform shows the liberal wing that they still have a voice in the party.

Earlier Posts about DNC Convention Speeches:

Kristin Urquiza's Speech about Her Father's Death from COVID-19

Bernie Sanders' Ideological Speech

William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" Speech from the 1896 Democratic Convention

Artist's Conception of Bryan at the Convention

As the Democratic National Convention meets online tonight for the first time in history, we should remember William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold,” surely the most famous convention speech in American history. In 1896, it was not always a foregone conclusion which candidate would be nominated. Representing Nebraska at the Democratic Convention, Bryan finagled onto an important committee and got himself placed on the speakers’ schedule. He told his friends that he had prepared a speech that would ensure him the nomination. His magnificent oration, in which he defended ordinary Americans against the powers of big business that had aligned themselves behind Republican William McKinley, has inspired speech students ever since. Yet, glorious though the speech was, it was highly polarizing, to the extent that Bryan’s opponents were able to label him an irresponsible fanatic.

Yet, the speech’s main point – and one of the major issues of the 1896 campaign – was an economic absurdity. Bryan’s thesis was that coins should be minted from silver as well as gold, an economic policy called bimetallism. The Republican Party platform called for minting only gold coins. McKinley, however, was a long-standing advocate of coining silver. Politics is an odd business, is it not?

At this point, the reader might ask: who cares? Exactly! There was little reason for anyone to care. While the Gold Bugs screamed that the bimetallists were fanatics, and the bimetallists called the Gold Bugs slaves of monopolies and trusts, the United States had, in real life, long been on a de facto fiat/paper money standard. Gold and silver coins were little more than relics of the era of the Spanish Armada and Caribbean Pirates. Nevertheless, the opposing sides, motivated entirely by their ignorance of basic economics, turned gold and silver coinage into an issue for the ages.

As he rose to give his speech to a packed crowd in a huge Chicago arena, Bryan quickly turned the meaningless fight over coinage into an existential question, a dispute so powerful that he said it was greater than any in history:

“Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party.”

Having brought his silly monetary theory to the forefront, Bryan explained that the ordinary working American was just as much in business as the industrial trusts, huge factories, and transcontinental railroads. This led him to give one of the most inspired defenses of political liberalism in our nation’s history:

“We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day -- who begins in the spring and toils all summer -- and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for this broader class of business men.”

Bryan’s images were so vivid, so powerful:   

“The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer.” 

The farmer “who toils all day” is equally a person of business with the financial speculators who place bets “upon the price of grain.” 

The “miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth . . . And bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade” are business people every bit as much as the “few financial magnates who . . . corner the money of the world.” 

We could remember this today, could we not? Today, after all, middle-class wages have stagnated, while incompetent hedge fund managers become wealthy by skimming off a portion of their clients’ money before placing the balance in unwise investments. Bryan could have added them to his list. 

The bulk of Bryan’s speech examined several arguments for and against silver coinage. Then, in his emotional conclusion, Bryan returned to defense of ordinary Americans. In vivid, powerful, even brutal language, Bryan ended:

“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor’s crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

It is said that he spread his arms wide in imitation of a crucifix. The crowd cheered and he was carried bodily around the room. After several ballots, the Democratic convention nominated Bryan to be President of the United States, whereupon he lost convincingly to the less eloquent, but calmer and more conciliatory, Republican candidate, William McKinley. 

Bryan was nominated for and lost the presidency a total of three times. During his public career, he also was elected to two terms in Congress, served in the United States Army stateside during the Spanish-American War, and was Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State. Bryan was known for populist, often idealist policies, isolationism, and arms control treaties. He made a fortune on the Chautauqua speaking circuit, where people paid to hear him give an inspiring religious speech called the “Prince of Peace.” Most important, however, Bryan began the Democratic Party’s move from the backwards party of stodgy conservativism that it represented to the more liberal party that we have today. 

Bryan's point was not so much about economics, which he did not understand, but rather a feeling that Republicans stood for big business and harmed working people. That attitude led to a change in focus that has stayed with the Democratic Party up to the present. In 1896, however, the Republican Party was still at least the lukewarm party of civil rights, while it was the Democrats who supported the worst of the Jim Crow laws. 

Earlier Post: Steve Bannon's Polarizing Value Voters Speech

Almost 20 years ago, I was lucky enough to publish an academic article about the speech in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. The paper argues that Bryan’s polarizing cell helped him to gain the nomination, but was so controversial as to his him the general election. In addition to research databases, you can, if you wish, read a preprint of the article posted by the University of South Carolina. Chapter 4 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Campaign, contains an updated version of the article. Most large research libraries will have a copy, and bookstores carry it in paperback.

Let’s keep an eye on the Democratic national convention tonight. Will we hear a memorable speech? Or will the speakers all play it safe? The show (what else should we call it?) begins at 9 o’clock tonight, Eastern Time.

Image: Artist's Impression of Bryan after his convention speech, McClure's Magazine, via Wikimedia

Image: From TAMU Press website

Thanks to my graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst and his industrious staff for posting "Cross of Gold," as well as hundreds of other speeches, on www.AmericanRhetoric.com.