Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Pope Francis delivered an inspiring, but very pointed, Christmas message today. His theme was peace. Religious speakers often talk about peace, but typically discuss peace only in the most general way. The Pope's message, in contrast, was pointed. He listed various war-torn places and reminded the world's leaders that the inhabitants needed peace.

Pope Francis (US government photo)

He took an adept approach. He began with a traditional Christmas greeting. In the English translation: "Christ is born for us, let us rejoice in the day of our salvation!" He called Christmas "A day of mercy . . . A day of light . . .  A day of peace, which makes for encounter, dialogue and, above all, reconciliation." He continued that it was "A day of joy." He re-emphasized traditional Christian doctrines about the nativity. He told the crowd that "Where God is born, hope is born."

This straightforward message led Pope Francis to discuss various specific places that called for peace. He urged "Israelis and Palestinians" to "resume direct dialogue and reach an agreement which will enable the two peoples to live together in harmony." He specifically prayed that the United Nations' agreement would lead to an end to Syria's conflict and resolve "the extremely grave humanitarian situation of its suffering people." He went on to urge the opposing parties to reach agreements to end the conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. He expressed sympathy for "those affected by brutal acts of terrorism."

He wasn't finished reviewing the world's problems. He also prayed for peace in Congo, Burundi, South Sudan, and Ukraine. He reminded the world's leaders that they had already agreed on terms "to restore concord in Ukraine" and urged them to fulfill their agreements.

Pope Francis concluded his message by returning to explicitly religious theme: "Where God is born, mercy flourishes." Of course, the point that he implied was that peace is a specifically religious theme.

Anyone following the news knows that many of his points were actually very controversial. But if a speaker isn't willing to create some controversy, why bother giving a speech at all? Many people think that a religious speech, especially on a special day, should avoid politics. But why? When is it more important to discuss public policy, to remind the world's leaders of their moral obligations? Please note that the Pope did not speak for or against any particular politician, nor did he speak for or against any particular proposal. Instead, he offered moral guidance to help the world's leaders understand their obligations. Just as ceremonial speeches can, and often should, turn to political or moral questions, so a religious speech can, and should, offer moral guidance about public issues.

So, for my own part, I wish a joyful and peaceful Christmas to all.

Dolly Parton's Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

For some reason, I just remembered Dolly Parton's 2009 commencement speech at the University of Tennessee. I have shown this to my students several times; most of them like the speech and some do not. I think that she gave a very good ceremonial speech, and here are the reasons why:

1. She spoke extemporaneously. What this means is that she was prepared, and she had reflected carefully on what she was going to say and how she would say it. She did not, however, read the speech. When a speaker reads a speech, the manuscript sticks a barrier between speaker and audience. Also, a good speaker wants to respond to the audience's reactions. A prepared manuscript often prevents that from happening. Also, no matter how well the speech is written, it will never sound like conversation.

2. She was lively. Her voice was varied. She was alternately loud, soft, fast, and slow. Her voice expressed her ideas and thoughts. She was easy to hear. I am horrified by how often good speeches are ruined simply because no one can hear the speaker. Dolly was easy to hear.

3. She told many stories. Very few speakers can give a good speech full of generalities. Well, Abraham Lincoln could do it, but most of us cannot. She told stories about her childhood and her career. Each story made an important point. For example, she told a wonderful story about rehearsing for 9 to 5, when she had memorized the entire script and other actors only knew their own lines. They thought it was funny that she didn't know better. Yet, she didn't miss her lines during the performance, and other people did. This made her point about how important it is to be prepared for whatever one does.

4. She praised the graduates, of course, since praise is the main point of a commencement speech. She also made general points and talked about larger issues. Ceremonial speakers should always do so. She told the graduates to work for their dreams, to be prepared, and to be on time. A ceremonial speaker's main job is to bring out values and to pass those values on to the audience.

5. She also sang for the graduates. Why not?

Bob Dylan's Nobel Prize Speech

Aristotle said that ceremonial speeches are about honor. All good ceremonial speakers take time to express some issue broader than the immediate honor. The American songwriter Bob Dylan accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature on December 10, 2016. Declining to attend the ceremony in person was quite in character for him. Since he wasn't there, he sent a speech, which United States Ambassador Azita Raji read. Dylan's speech talked about the honor, and drew a larger point.

This seemed a bid odd, but historians for rhetoric know that there is precedent for speeches that the speaker doesn't present. For example, in ancient Greece, Gorgias' praise of Helen was written as a sample to study, not for oral presentation. It has been said that Gandhi was sometimes too nervous to read a speech, and had someone else read it for him. I do recommend showing up in person to give your own speeches, but, well, I'm not Bob Dylan.

The speech itself? Dylan expressed a proper degree of modesty: he said he was "honored to be receiving such a prestigious prize" and said that he "never could have imagined or seen coming." He repeated the names of earlier prize winners, whose work he had read and admired, including "Kipling, Shaw, Thomas Mann, Pearl Buck, Albert Camus, Hemingway."

Concluding, Dylan said that "Not once have I ever had the time to ask myself, 'Are my songs literature?'" That is the larger point. Are songs literature? Certainly! Good ones, anyway. Again, many of the great poets of the past were songwriters. The immortal Sappho was a songwriter. Of course, thousands of years later, no one really knows what tunes she sang, but her song lyrics remain icons of poetic beauty. Indian songwriter Rabindranath Tagore won the 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature.

A good ceremonial speech is never fluff. It should always be interesting, and can even cause controversy. Congratulations, Bob Dylan, and thank you for the songs.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941

Today is the anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's War Message to Congress. The Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt did not need to persuade Congress to declare war; this was a given. He did, however, need to express outrage about the attack, to demonstrate the evil behind it, and to assure the nation of his resolve to pursue the war to victory.

FDR and his speechwriters put the speech through a series of drafts.

Draft of Pearl Harbor speech

A long speech was unnecessary, but a forceful speech was. It was as much an epideictic or ceremonial speech as a policy speech, and Roosevelt used the opportunity to criticize Japan and to emphasize the dastardly nature of the attack. It is not unusual for epideictic rhetoric to imply or advocate a policy. Aristotle said that the purpose of an epideictic speech is praise and blame. Praise is more common, of course, but this was a speech of blame. The phrase, "a day which will live in infamy," has become a national symbol.

 One common purpose of epideictic or ceremonial speeches is to give honor, but this speech was about dishonor. Japan's attack was, Roosevelt insisted, dishonorable: "The United States as at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific."

Sometimes a short speech is all that is necessary. The speech's brevity gave it its power: Roosevelt made a few quick points, and the speech was over. The vote for war was nearly unanimous.

World War II was a great horror. My uncle died in the war, and my father and father-in-law both served in the armed forces.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans, and tens of millions of people, died before the conflict came to a weary, uneasy end.

Image:U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Quotations Are Great in a Speech: But Be Careful!

A few months ago, I published a research article about fake gun control quotations. I'm happy to see that another researcher has already cited it. It is always good to know that someone is reading what one writes.

It is a wonderful technique to quote people during a speech. Quotations add currency to your speech. They tie your ideas to the wisdom of the past. They are often charming. A quotation is a great way to begin a speech, and often an even better way to end a speech.

"Fake quotations are bad."

Unfortunately, fake quotations float all over the Internet. You can easily find fake quotations from George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln. Many of the fake quotations falsely attribute extreme right-wing views to those famous persons. My article talked about a group of fake pro-gun quotations often attributed to the United States' Founders. Liberals get quotations wrong, too. Barack Obama once got caught using a fake Lincoln quotation.

So, use quotations, but always trace them back to the source. Never, ever assume that some blogger has the quotation right. Do not assume that a quotation collection that you find in the library or on the Internet is correct. Do not even assume that some journalist or college professor has the quotation right. If you cannot find the quotation in the actual person's writings or speeches, than the quotation is probably fake.

I also refer you to an interesting book entitled They Never Said It, by Paul F. Boller, Jr., who does a great job of talking about how fake quotations spread.

Just as the Internet makes it easy to find fake quotations, the Internet also makes it easy for your audience to catch them. Use one fake quotation in your speech, even once, and you will have harmed your credibility forever. If your audience has smartphones, they will probably find out that you used a fake quotation before you even finish the speech. So, yes, quote famous people, but check your sources and be very careful.

How to Win a Political Debate

Political debates: who wins and who loses? The obvious debate winner is the election winner. This is different from college and high school debates, when an expert judge picks the winner. Things are not always so simple, however. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas at seven different locations around Illinois. They were running for United States Senator from Illinois. Lincoln lost the election. However, newspapers across the country printed transcripts of the debates. These reports made Lincoln a household name. His views about slavery became known nationwide. Very likely, the debates, which Lincoln lost in 1858, helped him spread his opinions so he could become a serious presidential candidate in 1860.

In recent years, presidential debates have degenerated into name-calling fests. Issues are no longer discussed in depth. Although most pundits felt that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 debates, she lost the election.

Partly, the debaters no longer understand how to debate. Here are some ideas which result in better debating:

1. State your conclusion before you give your argument.
2. Explain why your conclusion is right.
3. Give evidence, citing appropriate sources as needed.

The debate formats in 2016 did not lend themselves to this simple approach. The speeches were too short, and the questions did not follow themes with any consistency. The debaters got personal all too often. Thus, in-depth explanations and proof were lacking. One-liners and talking points are poor debating methods.

Attitude change resulting from name-calling, fear-mongering, and personal attacks results only in short-term attitude change, and has little effect on behavior. Going to the polls to vote is behavior, and behavior tends to be more deeply seated when reason and evidence underlie it. I imagine that the methods that Clinton and Trump used in 2016 tested well in focus groups, but focus groups aren't the election.

So - state your case, explain it, and prove it. It's not magic.