How to End a Public Speech

The audience often remembers the last thing that a speaker says, so a speech's conclusion gives the speaker a chance to make a final impression. Daydreaming audience members often wake up as the speech's conclusion draws near.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Almost always repeat your main points. Don't explain them again; just restate them. This helps the audience to remember what you said.

Abraham Lincoln

2. End with a striking statement. This gives the audience something to think about. Here are a couple of famous examples:

• Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address: "... government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." How could anyone forget that ending? Lincoln did not just say that the Union should continue the Civil War (which was part of his purpose), but also reaffirmed the nation's most basic values. This placed his speech on a higher plane.

• William Jennings Byran, "Cross of Gold:" "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Bryan's speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention was directed against the gold standard. This was an arcane economic issue that few people really understood very well. So, ending his speech, Bryan emphasized that the gold standard would (in his opinion) oppress the ordinary working American. His dramatic conclusion placed economic issues on a more human level. 

William J. Bryan

Both of these famous speakers understood that they needed to end their speeches memorably.

3.  End with a call to action. Ask the audience to vote, to support your plan, to donate to your charity, to attend your program, or whatever.

4. End with a story. Actually, a really good method is to begin the speech with a story, but don't complete the story. Give the rest of the speech, and tell the audience the end of the story in the conclusion. This ties things together, and the suspense helps the audience pay attention all through the speech.

For tips on beginning a speech, see my earlier post.

Hillary Clinton's Speaking: Did Her Speaking Style Contribute to Her Loss?

Did Hillary Clinton's speaking style contribute to her loss in the 2016 election? Maybe, I suppose. In an earlier post, I explained how Donald Trump's speaking style was direct and energetic. Now, Hillary Clinton's speaking style was not bad at all. She spoke firmly and her voice had plenty of variety. Her voice and nonverbal communication were much more similar to what I teach my students than were Donald Trump's. At the same time, she often seemed overly rehearsed and a bit stiff, especially in the three presidential debates. Her smile sometimes seemed forced. When Trump insulted her or tried to intimidate her, her response was a particularly stiff smile. For my part, if I had been in her place (thank goodness that I wasn't!), I would have reacted more directly.

Hillary Clinton

When a woman debates or speaks forcefully, people often unfairly say that she sounds shrill. Clinton had a difficult balance to strike, in that she needed to sound firm and to stand up to Trump without sounding harsh. All the same, I have, many times, heard women debate forcefully and effectively.

So, Clinton did not really do anything wrong. Her problem was, how could she stand up, nonverbally, to Trump's behavior, which was sometimes a bit bizarre? That is a hard question, and I have no clear answer.

There are, of course, several caveats here. First, Clinton's lead in the popular vote has, at this point, reached over 2 million and counting. She gained more total support than Trump. She lost votes in the mostly smaller, more conservative states of  the Midwest and Southeast, most of which are, by the Constitutional Convention's design, over-represented in the Electoral College. Maybe she didn't seem feminine enough to some people, or seemed too feminine to others. Who knows? One of my students was upset that Clinton wore pants, not a dress. Second, hindsight is always 20-20, and post-hoc explanations like mine do not always mean a lot. Still, one has to wonder: was there a way that Clinton could have presented herself nonverbally--voice, gesture, facial expressions--that would have helped her to counter Trump more effectively? Or not?

Official Dept. of State photo

The Family Thanksgving Speech: What Are You Thankful For?

The big speech ritual at Thanksgiving, just before the blessing and the turkey-carving, is for everyone at the table to give thanks for something.

"I'm thankful for my family."
"I'm thankful that we everyone is home."
"I'm thankful that I passed my math test."

Or whatever. These are actually brief epideictic speeches. That is, they display people's values, emotions, and sense of unity. Although these tiny speeches often fill the children with impatience ("Can we eat yet?"), they also help people to bond, to reflect, to affirm what is important to them. These are some of the most important reasons to give a speech.

For more about epideictic speeches, see:

Selena Gomez

4th of July Speeches

Should ceremonial speakers cause controversy (sure, why shouldn't they?)

Did Trump's Speech Delivery Help Him Win?

I promised to spend more time talking, not about what Trump did wrong during the campaign, but what he did right. He won, did he not? He must have done something right. What about his speech delivery, that is, his voice and body language?

Much fun was made of Donald Trump's speaking during the 2016 campaign and presidential debates. Rightly so. He was crude; his nonverbal behavior was distracting, and he snorted a lot. Awful. His delivery, however, contributed to his success, and for reasons that any speech textbook will explain.

Donald J. Trump by Gage Skidmore

As Herbert Wichelns pointed out almost a century ago, speech is not about beauty, but effect. To win the election, Trump did not need to speak beautifully. He needed to speak with effect. Some of the things that he did during his speeches and debates, such as mangling facts and threatening his opponent, were reprehensible. The sniffling, scowling, and growling were irritating. Trump rambled incoherently. If I had graded his speeches in my public speaking class, I would have trouble finding any excuse to pass him.



At the same time--Trump's speech delivery was:

• Enthusiastic
• Varied in pitch, volume, tone, and rate of speech
• Full of eye contact
• Loud and easy to hear
• Relaxed
• Conversational (most of the time)

Trump was easy to listen to. That doesn't mean that he was enjoyable to listen to. It means that it was hard not to listen. Trump was often unpleasant, but he was hard to ignore.

In contrast, although Hillary Clinton was much classier, and far better prepared, she sometimes seemed a bit remote. A little stiff. Why did this matter? Did her delivery actually hurt her a little bit? Maybe. I'll talk about that in a future post.

Lesson for public speakers: enthusiasm, vocal variety, eye contact, vocal projection, and a conversational manner, as public speaking textbooks recommend, actually work. Remember that.

Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49561185

Selena Gomez at AMA: Epideictic Speech at Its Best

Selena Gomez gave a moving acceptance speech at the American Music Awards. She didn't just give thanks for the award; she also brought up her long struggle with depression and anxiety, using the occasion to discuss personal triumph. She passed an important insight to the audience. Truth and sincerity are often the best persuaders.

More about President William McKinley

 In From the Front Porch to the Front
Page, I explain William McKinley and
William Jennings Bryan's campaign
speeches.

My chapter in Before the Rhetorical Presidency
traces McKinley's speaking career
in four stages.

With American history often forgotten, it has become too easy for people to forget the past's lessons or, worse, for unscrupulous people to invent a past that never existed. So, to follow up on my previous post about William McKinley, here is a bit of self-promotion for two of my publications about McKinley's speaking career.


Also see my earlier post about McKinley's speaking approach.

McKinley's Last Speech: Inclusive, Rational, Persuasive

McKinley speaking in Buffalo (enter of stage in white shirt)
(Library of Congress)

President Willliam McKinley's last speech, which he gave at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY, spoke for free trade and for the future. His speech was rational, persuasive, and unifying. McKinley stuck to a theme for the entire speech. It was an excellent speech, nothing like the (much worse) political speeches that we hear today. 

Conservative writers rightly consider McKinley to be an underrated president. Kevin Phillips' book marks McKinley as among the best, albeit not greatest, presidents. Karl Rove considers the 1896 election that sent McKinley to the White House to have been pivotal, and remarks on the calming effect that McKinley's style exerted on American politics. 

I was privileged to present a paper about McKinley's last speech at the 2016 NCA Convention, on a panel shared with other researchers of American communication. 

L-R: Marylou R. Naumoff, Anjuli J. Brekke, Joan Faber McAlister (panel chair), William Harpine

In this last speech, McKinley spoke against the protective tariff, which he had previously favored. He praised the Pan-American Exposition as a "timekeeper of progress." Most notably, he made every effort to offend no one. He was lavish with praise, and circumspect with criticism. His goal was to build unity, to help people work together toward the future. "No nation," McKinley said, "can longer be indifferent to one another." So different from the angry, polarizing style of 21st century politicians like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. So different from the angry, polarizing style of McKinley's own competitors. 

Question to ponder: if a 2016 presidential candidate had spoken like McKinley, trying to bring us together, praising everybody, showing sympathy for the entire nation and world, could such a style win elections? We don't know, since no major candidate in the 2016 election spoke in such a helpful, patriotic manner. 

PS: see my update

Trump and Conspiracy Theories

Conventional wisdom holds that Donald Trump believes in many conspiracy theories, and that this belief system makes him unqualified to be president, and that he was elected in spite of this character flaw. Trump's speeches certainly contained many conspiracy theories.

An article in the reliably liberal Huffington Post points out that Trump has held many conspiracy theories, claiming that "He's long presented the absurd and false as fact." For example, Trump told a group of Southern Californians that the government caused the state's ongoing drought by sending water out to sea. Rather unlikely, don't you think?

Another explanation, however, makes more sense. What Trump's critics miss is that a great many Americans, probably a majority, believe at least one unproven conspiracy theory. Most, not some, Americans believe that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, or the FBI, or the Cubans, or the Russians, or.... Bigfoot? Who knows, since there is little actual evidence for any of it. Worse, some conspiracies, such as the Watergate cover-up, turned out to be real.

Basically, there is no good reason to think that belief in unjustified conspiracy theories turns all that many voters away from a candidate. Of course, Trump's conspiracy theories differ from conspiracy theories sometimes held by liberals, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the HIV conspiracy theories. Many people are inclined to mistrust the government, and are therefore predisposed to believe outlandish explanations about secret cabals. In fact, returning to the drought conspiracy theories, when my wife and I visited central California a few years back, we saw quite a few road signs opposing the government-caused drought. Wow! Those people attribute great powers to the government.

When real conspiracies occur, and they do, it is important to flush them out into the open. It is equally important not to be carried away by silly conspiracy theories that lack underlying proof. How do you tell the difference between real conspiracies and unproven ones? My earlier posts give some ideas.

Overall, however, many voters would be quite content to know that Trump accepted many conspiracy theories. That's because many voters themselves hold similar beliefs. Indeed, it is quite possible that they found his conspiracy speeches reassuring, thinking something like, "At last! A candidate who will protect us against conspiracies!" So, the conspiracy rhetoric that filled many of Trump's speeches, and which his opponents ridiculed, may have been a  powerful persuasive strategy.

Trump: Are Speech Experts Missing the Point?

I just returned from the 2016 National Communication Association in Philadelphia. The conference was on fire about the 2016 general election results. Some researchers called the election results a national tragedy or an inexplicable shock.

Many people asked, what did Hillary Clinton do wrong? But isn't that the wrong question? The fact remains that Trump must have done something very persuasive to win the election and reshape the Republican brand. How did he do it? I'll offer some thoughts over the next few days.

Charles Bierbauer: "What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking?"

I was fortunate enough to appear on a panel last night, November 7, 2016, at the University of South Carolina Aiken. The featured speaker was Charles Bierbauer, Dean of the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies at the University of South Carolina Columbia. Bierbauer was formerly a senior correspondent for CNN. David Dillard-Wright moderated.

Bierbauer's message emphasized that our political system is durable. He discussed the press' role in keeping the public fully informed about important issues and events. Showing us his ever-ready pocket Constitution, he explained its role in determining our governance. He also emphasized that we all need to get our news from multiple sources. Good advice, in all.

The role of the other panelists, myself included, was to bring up additional questions about the campaign and political communication. For my part, I asked what could be done to restore the press' credibility, when so many honest reporters are accused of bias when their only sin is to report something that people would rather not know. We who specialize in communication need to work on that issue, don't we! This was an important program; many community leaders attended.

L-R: Bob Botsch, Brandy Horne, Charles Bierbauer, Matt Thornburg, William Harpine
USC Aiken Photo

Why Such a Negative Campaign?

Senator Albert J. Beveridge

The 2016 presidential campaign has reached great depths of negativism. Americans seem sick of the election.

1. Crazed negativism has long plagued American politics. The 1800 campaign was much nastier. Yes, that's right, our Founding Fathers knew how to get very negative. The great Republican orator Albert J. Beveridge (winner of college speech contests!), a prominent United States senator, wrote eloquently and humorously about the nasty political speeches that he heard as a boy growing up in the post-Civil War era. Beveridge was a firebrand himself early in his career, but eventually developed sober, conservative attitudes toward speaking.

2. Politicians go negative because it works. If positive visions won elections, politicians would have more positive visions. It's up to us, the voters, to vote for candidates who express a positive vision - if that is really what the voters want!

3. Voters need to sort genuine negative things from wild accusations and bizarre conspiracy theories. My earlier post about conspiracy theories gives some suggestions.

Good Speaking Voice

Gary Genard posted a note about how to develop a good speaking voice. His advice is very similar to what I tell my students. He emphasizes breathing from the diaphragm and speaking with energy rather than shouting. Good ideas.

A good voice is only partly about your natural talent. Almost anyone can learn to relax and project to the back of the room. I tell my students, "don't yell, but push your voice to the back of the room."

You will sound better if you speak in your natural pitch range. A common suggestion is to hum - you will tend to hum at your natural pitch. Many people tend to speak at a higher or lower range than what is natural for them.

Other tips - drink plenty of water. Maintain eye contact. You should feel very little strain in your throat - good speaking feels almost effortless. Think about conversing with the audience rather than speaking to them.

Incredulity effects: Why don't mainstream authorities worry about conspiracy theorists?

Salem Witch Trials

The spread of bizarre conspiracy theories, advocated in several recent speeches, makes us think about how they spread. Hillary Clinton is the devil. The United States government was behind 9/11. The government wants to take our guns and put us in FEMA concentration camps. All silly.

In part, mainstream writers, scholars, and journalists simply do not realize how popular these absurd, but often dangerous, ideas have become. The conspiracy theories are so ridiculous that responsible people do not believe how many people either believe these piles of nonsense, much less recognize how much harm conspiracy rhetoric can cause. Unfortunately, a great many Americans have been persuaded of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Worse, it is actually not necessary for people to believe conspiracy theories for them to be dangerous. Many people who do not believe the conspiracy theories do, however, at least suspect that they are true. There are plenty of real reasons to mistrust authorities; adding fuel by spreading conspiracy rhetoric only weakens the American republic.

And, while this goes on, most mainstream experts falsely attribute conspiracy rhetoric to a small lunatic fringe.

Here's my post about how to evaluate conspiracy speeches: http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/10/speeches-about-conspiracies-how-can-we.html