Bill Clinton's 2016 DNC Convention Speech: The Narrative Paradigm

Bill Clinton spoke in support of his wife's nomination at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Clinton proved his point, which was that he thought that Hillary Clinton was caring, capable, and effective, by telling stories. He told stories about how they met, how she started a legal aid clinic, and how she got involved in politics.

According to Walter Fisher's theory of narrative communication, telling stories can actually help to create meaning and prove arguments. Ronald Reagan was, as we all know, past master of this method. Clinton's story-telling made for an effective speech.

Donald Trump and fear appeals: Are fear appeals persuasive?

Much has been made of the dark, fear-ridden version of the United States that Donald Trump presented in his 2016 speech accepting the Republican nomination to be President of the United States. This may raise the question, do fear appeal really work?

An article by Dolores Albarracin, a professor in the Pyschology Department of my alma mater, the University of Illinois, analyzes over a hundred studies of fear appeals. She concludes that fear appeals do have a significant, albeit often small, persuasive effect. She also argues that other kinds of persuasive appeals are often more effective.

Effective fear appeals require that the audience be able to take some kind of action to reduce the danger that they perceive. In Trump's speech, his point was that he, and he alone, could reduce the dangers that he depicted.

At the same time, were the dangers that Trump depicted entirely real? The fact-checkers are already busy investigating what in his speech was real and what was not.

Fear appeals can be a risky persuasive method. No one can be afraid all the time; at some point, people do need to find rational solutions.

Melania Trump's Plagiarism Scandal

I do not want to put any further heat on Melania Trump for her 2016 Republican National Convention speech. She made a mistake; she got caught; issue closed. I am, however, appalled by some of the things said in her defense.

First, it is no defense to say that one is using common language or expressing popular ideas. Plagiarism does not happen by accident. The only way that one can plagiarize is to copy someone else's words or ideas without giving credit. This can only be intentional. Plagiarism can result from carelessness, or a moment of inattention, or appalling levels of ignorance, but it is never a coincidence.

Second, there are cultural variations in intellectual property rights. In the Western democracies, however, giving credit to someone whom you are quoting is considered basic. We live in an information society, and intellectual property rights underlie both our economy and our intellectual lives.

Third, plagiarism is very common. I always give my students instruction for avoiding plagiarism. It doesn't seem to discourage all of them! Despite knowing better, some of my students still plagiarize their in-class speeches. Famous writers and speakers have plagiarized. Major Democratic and Republican politicians have plagiarized. However, two (or three, or four) wrongs don't make a right. Many of the ridiculous excuses that Republican convention-goers have given for Mrs. Trump sound just like the silly things that my students say when they are caught copying. In fact, second-grade teachers tell the students not to copy someone else's work. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, should know better.

Fourth, changing a few words does not forestall an accusation of plagiarism. In Western culture, one must either express ideas entirely in one's own words, or quote the other person's words exactly while giving credit. Nothing in-between is acceptable. Sometimes writers and speakers weaver their own ideas or words into the material that they have wrongly copied. This is never acceptable.

The Internet age makes it very, very easy to plagiarize. It also makes it very, very easy to catch plagiarists. Speakers should be careful, for one's reputation can be lost in a moment.

Tim Scott's Senate speech: Race relations, and a lesson in speaker credibility

United States Senator Tim Scott, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, and one of only two African-Americans in the United States Senate, delivered an outstanding speech in the United States Senate in the wake of police shootings and the murder of five Dallas police officers. He narrated his own personal experiences, describing incidents during which police officers treated him unfairly. Shockingly, he has even been treated unfairly by Capitol Police during his service in Congress.

US Senator Tim Scott

Several factors made Scott's speech memorable. First, as a conservative Republican, he brought credibility to the issue that liberal politicians may not have enjoyed. Second, he gave several specific narratives, telling not only what happened, but also how he felt. His calm delivery, and his plea for non-violence, also helped to make his speech credible.

Skillful presentation can make a speech more believable, but the speaker's character also makes a speech more credible.

Two ways to speak: emotionally, or reasonably?

Well, of course, every speech carries the speaker's emotions. And even the most rabid speaker usually tries to give some kind of supporting evidence.

With my long background in debating, however, I favor the speaking style that relies on careful research and reasoning. The speaking style that appeals to what lasts, which is our sense of truth, and not to what doesn't last, which is the emotion of the moment.

Furthermore, the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion shows us that persuasion is more effective and last longer when reasoning and evidence underlie it.

So, although we often identify oratory with wild emotions, shouting speakers, and cheering audiences, careful reasoned discussion remains vital.

What Happened to the Fourth of July Speeches?

The Fourth of July is this weekend, and people all over the country look forward to the fireworks.

Fireworks on the National Mall, WhiteHouse.gov

But what about the speeches? 

We all learned in school about Frederick Douglass' Fourth of July speech ("What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?"). Douglass reminded his audience that, whatever the Fourth of July meant to them, the slave still lacked freedom. 

But Fourth of July speeches were once common. Speakers all over the country gave patriotic speeches every year. 

As recently as my youth (in the 1960's), the common practice was that a local band would give a concert on the field, with a politician or local war hero to follow up with a patriotic speech. This practice has largely died out. Although some communities still have the band concert, the Fourth of July speech seems to have vanished into history. I do notice that Sioux Falls plans to have a Fourth of July speech. Good for them!

What we are missing when we skip the speech is to share communal values. Fireworks show us that we are celebrating something important, but the fireworks show does not remind us what we are celebrating. Ceremonial speeches, like Fourth of July speeches, are part of the glue that bind us together. Losing that glue may well lead to our feeling more divided and more polarized, as we lose sight of the ties that connect us to one another as members of a diverse, but vast, nation.