 |
| Elizabeth Warren, US Senate Photo |
Communication researchers often think that nonverbal
communication is more important than verbal communication. I commented in my
last post that Senator Elizabeth Warren is by far the most knowledgeable of
the 2020 Democratic candidates for president. But we all know that she lags
in the polls. Why? There are probably several reasons: too many people, sadly,
don’t want a woman president. The media may be under-reporting her ideas and events
while they underestimated
her performance in early primary debates. Her economic ideas, which would
be considered mainstream in Europe or Asia, have been branded as far left or
radical, not just on Fox News, but even in the mainstream press.
None of that, however, fully explains why she’s not getting
ahead. Her failure lies, not in her ideas, which I think are excellent, or
in her reasoning and explanations, which are well-defined, but in the way she
presents herself. In the media age, we often talk about what makes a person
seem presidential. That is, certain undefined,
amorphous qualities make a person seem like a world and national leader. Elizabeth Warren would probably be an
excellent president. Her ideas would probably improve the country. But it isn’t
just what you say, it’s how you say it. Warren’s delivery – her use of voice,
gesture, body language, and clothing communication, that is, her nonverbal
communication – does not make her seem confident and powerful. She doesn’t
project the gravitas to lead the country and the free world. I am not
saying that she couldn’t do it, because I think she could. I am saying that
she doesn’t look and sound as
if she could do it.
To illustrate this, let’s look at a short speech that she
gave last year at the “We
the People” rally. Warren's content was typical: she complained that President
Trump was a national security risk, that America’s economy had been
deliberately modified in recent years to favor the rich against the working
class, and that there was too much corruption in Washington. She talked about
her own upbringing in a middle-class family that faced financial struggles. She
said (shades of John
Dean), “I want to talk about this cancer on our country.”
That’s typical stuff for a liberal politician. Her
explanations were precise. She gave examples to support her points. Judged as basic
economic and political policy, everything she said was just fine.
Unfortunately, although she said good things, Warren didn’t sound good. For one thing, she
spoke in the upper range of her voice. Many speakers habitually speak above their
voice’s optimal pitch range. They think this makes them sound excited and
powerful. (I often catch myself doing the same thing: my natural voice is in
the baritone range, but I often speak like a tenor. I have to fight not to
sound shrill.) Other speakers force their voices down into an unnatural range,
like Cliff Clavin in the
TV show Cheers. It sounds comical when we hear Cliff trying to sound like a big shot. Unfortunately,
too many speakers think that forcing their voices down makes them sound manly
or forceful or something. They are wrong. When you speak outside of your
natural range, you just sound tense and insecure.
Second, Warren speaks with obvious vocal
hyperfunction. That is, her vocal muscles work too hard to
produce sounds. During this speech, Warren sounded shrill, almost nervous, as if she were pleading rather than persuading. Good vocal production is almost effortless. When you sound like
you’re working to speak, you can make your audience feel uncomfortable or,
again, you can sound tense or insecure. (You are also more likely to get
laryngitis.)
Perhaps as a result, Elizabeth Warren’s voice in this speech
often cracked and sounded tense. Saturday
Night Live’s brilliant mimic, Kate McKinnon, plays
this characteristic to a hilarious hilt. Warren also sounded hoarse, which is
not unusual for candidates during a political campaign. Still, a skillful
speaker might overcome or prevent hoarseness by good breath control and relaxing
the vocal muscles. Overall, Warren’s vocal skills, or lack thereof, often make
her sound overeager, uncertain, and unserious. It’s quite a shame. Warren has a college degree in speech pathology and audiology, which makes me wonder why she doesn’t use her voice more effectively.
Political communication expert Jennifer Palmieri praises Warren's communication skills. Admittedly, Elizabeth Warren is, in many ways, a skilled and experienced speaker. She
was a champion
debater in high school. In the speech to the We the People rally, she paused with dramatic effect and
used good vocal variety. That is, she adroitly varied her speed and volume; for
example, slowing down and speaking quietly when she talked about her parents’
financial struggles and their problems with mortgages and foreclosures, but
speaking loudly and quickly when she complained about Donald Trump’s
corruption. She spoke loudly and firmly when she said, “What’s happened in
America has been a series of deliberate decision made right here in Washington.”
She spoke more quietly and slowly when she said, “what’s happening to working
families in this country. What’s
happening to opportunity in this country.” She said “opportunity” more loudly,
thus nonverbally making opportunity her main theme. That, as far as it goes, is
exactly how I would teach my students to speak. That's all good. I just wish that Warren sounded better.
Let’s also look at her physical appearance. A speaker’s physical
appearance is part of the nonverbal communication. During the speech, Warren wore
her characteristic outfit: an ill-fitting maroon jacket, wire rim glasses, a
simple black blouse, and black slacks. She looked like a schoolteacher or
university professor. Well, of course, she’s both of those things. I don’t have
anything against looking like a university professor; I taught at universities
for many years and often wore plaid jackets and plaid ties. It was part of the
uniform. A president, however, needs to look like a serious person. Warren did
not dress like a serious person. Her entire appearance was insubstantial. Her
appearance would serve just fine if she were selling furniture or used cars. Her
manner of dress probably makes her seem approachable, friendly, and positive.
That manner of dress, in fact, probably tested well during her campaign
research and focus groups. But could you
look like that and beat Donald Trump? I don’t see how.
Years ago, I was a high school debater just like Elizabeth
Warren. I was not as successful as she was; my partner, future
scientist Kenneth Marton, and I at Virginia’s Oakton High School qualified for
the state tournament but finished in the middle of the pack. We had three wins and three losses; one of our losses was to national high school champion Dennis Henigan,
which is surely no shame.
Anyway, our local high school debate league was constantly
looking for judges, and both of my parents volunteered – my father, an
attorney, and my mother, a high school debater herself, were both considered
qualified. After judging several debates, my mother commented that the female
debaters had a difficult task. They needed, she said, to sound forceful and
confident without sounding shrill. That is not fair, of course, any more than it
is fair to judge a candidate by how she dresses. But it is reality. Neither Amy
Klobuchar and Tulsi
Gabbard, who also declared for the Democratic presidential primaries, has
anything like Warren’s intellectual power. They do, however, have superb vocal
control. They sound good when they talk: their voices are relaxed and rich. They
project confidence without seeming eager. They sound serious.
Can a woman become president? I would like to hope so.
Speaking only for myself, I think almost any of the female candidates in 2016
would be a better president than almost any of the men. If the Democrats could
find a candidate with Elizabeth Warren’s ideas and Tulsi Gabbard’s voice,
they might crush Donald Trump in a landslide.
I know that it seems unfair to criticize a female candidate
for how she looks and sounds, but it isn’t just women. Let’s face facts: male
candidate Pete Buttigieg sounds whiny; Bernie Sanders yells too much, for which
he is justly criticized, and he needs a better haircut, while Andrew Yang never
wore a tie during the primary debates. That was the end of the line for Yang: rightly
so, in my opinion. If you’re a lightweight, you need to stay out of the White
House.
We were all taught in high school to choose candidates by judging
their issue positions and evaluating their qualifications to lead the free
world. Donald Trump, however, won the presidency without passing either test: his
issue positions were idiotic (Mexico will pay for the wall? Really?), and he demonstrated
no personal qualities sufficient to lead a local hardware store. However, when
he speaks, he sounds
supremely confident. He manipulates his voice clearly, naturally, and
powerfully. His voice expresses vast emotional range. He makes every word count. No, speech delivery is not the only
thing that matters. It’s not even the most important thing: even in the age of
the rhetorical presidency, many people think that presentation skills should have
little bearing on choosing a presidential candidate. All the same, political
candidates need to know how to convey a serious, confident impression when they
speak.
P.S.: How can speakers improve their voice? I took two
years of voice therapy from speech pathologists. I will never sound like a
newscaster, but I sound a lot better than I used to. Furthermore, after
treating my vocal hyperfunction, I no longer get laryngitis even when I have a
bad cold. For some people, acting classes might have a similar effect. Colleges used to teach voice and diction classes. These are less common now than in the past, but I recommend taking one if you can find it. Or, if you simply
train yourself to relax your neck and breathe from the abdomen, like a singer,
you’ll sound at least a little bit better.
Here is an old trick to find your natural vocal range: sit
in a comfortable chair, close your eyes, relax, breathe slowly, and hum. You
will be humming in your natural range. Your natural range, maybe much to your
surprise, will probably be higher or lower than the way you usually speak. You
do not sound your best when you force your voice to be high or low. You sound your
best, by far, when you speak in the range that your voice wants to use.
