A fail, must do better next time

Universities have been teaching rhetoric since Ancient Greek times; Persuasive or deterrent oratory skills are an essential part of the successful leader’s toolbox. Unfortunately, Anthony Albanese’s overwhelming Address to the Nation fell short of its goal. Dr Michael Galvin explains how the Prime Minister and his speechwriter got it so wrong.

There’s a reason why rhetoric has been taught in universities since ancient Greek times. Convincing people of your point of view or dissuading them from theirs is a more permanent way of getting things done in public life than killing them or eliminating yourself.

Oratory has always been, and still is, an important part of the successful leader’s toolbox. Witness dozens of articles analyzing its brilliance Barack Obamarhetorical style in his speeches.

Unfortunately, Albanese is no Obama, and nowhere was this more evident than in his juggernaut. Address to the Nation last night. The purpose of this article is to offer a close and critical reading of Albanese’s speech. Those who want him to be successful no matter how long he remains as Prime Minister also need him to make better speeches. Repelling the putrid extremism of Far Right populism will require convincingly arguing in the public square, not simply dismissing One Nation’s voters as “deplorables.”

Lest this negative review of Albanese’s speech be seen as a sign of tacit support for the orange autocrat in the White House or, closer to home, Tarzan Angus Taylor, suffice it to say that Trump’s speech was terrible and that the latter was so addicted to outdated clichés and drugs that the possibility of Taylor voicing a thought of sophistication or originality seems more remote with each passing day.

But that doesn’t mean Trump or Taylor’s standards should measure the Albanian language. It needs to be much better.

A careful reading of the prime minister’s speech shows that almost all of the rules of rhetoric in Obama’s playbook were ignored. While each of these “mistakes” on their own might be considered minor or even blemishes, the cumulative effect was there for all to see: a message that was uninspiring, unmotivating, not very clear or coherent, at times disingenuous, and extremely boring and forgettable as an event of public importance.

Here are some of the ways Albanese’s speechwriters let him down.

Word repetition for emphasis. In the first sentence “we are an optimistic country”. In the second sentence, “…it’s hard to be positive anymore“. By not repeating the word “optimistic” the speaker raises the possibility that a different point is being made; this is to show that the Australian Government is aware that most Australians are anxious and/or negatively affected by this developing crisis. This is a distraction because the main purpose of the two lines is to emphasize the same point. A rookie mistake because the auditory, memorable value of repeating important words for emphasis is lost.

The third sentence is no better, but for other reasons.

“The war in the Middle East caused the largest increase in oil and diesel prices in history.”

First of all, using the term “Middle East” is very lazy, insincere and euphemistic. It is America and Israel’s attack on Iran that caused this fuel crisis. Or if those truthful words were too direct and bold to say out loud, he could at least say that the reason was the military conflict between Iran and the US/Israel. Why don’t you say so? That’s what everyone knows anyway. And it might be correct to end the sentence with “in history,” but so what? This statement carries no emotional or material weight and also falsely points to thousands of years of “history” in which the price of oil has been meaningless.

A few sentences later the Prime Minister says we are seeing these high prices “In the servo and in the supermarket”. Why this switch to Australian slang?

The use of the words “trucks” and “hard to do” in this and the next sentence suggests a desire to identify with the ordinary man (and woman); This is a forced and completely insincere feeling. Emphasizing old-school Australian working-class identity may be appropriate in some situations, but not when speaking for and on behalf of the nation at a time of extraordinary crisis.

Yes, Albans may choose to emulate the “naked talking” style as part of his identity, but he is not a Sydney University graduate, a trucker from Temora living in the 1950s.

In addition, sloppy logic is clearly visible throughout the speech, such as the following sentence:

“And I understand that farmers, truckers, small businesses and families are making it tough.”

This sentence goes against the fundamental law of rhetoric when it comes to using or naming lists. The principle with lists is to use only proportionate assets. For example, “apples, oranges, and pineapples” are consistent; but “apples, oranges, and berries” or “potatoes, peas, and vegetables” are inconsistent for obvious reasons. This illogicality in the Prime Minister’s sentence occurs not once but twice in the same 4-item list. Both “small businesses” and “families” are categories that include many, if not most, farmers and truck drivers.

Another deficiency in speech is the high number of missing sentences. Consider the dummy sentence:

“Leaders on both sides of politics from across the country are working together to ensure Australia moves forward.”

A sentence requires a base clause because without such a clause the meaning of the words themselves is not complete. A sentence consists of a group of words that have meaning on their own. This example is meaningless because it points to a claim that is not there. What exactly are you working on? Even though this point is implied, it remains hanging.

There are at least nine examples of such non-sentences in a very short speech. Such carelessness is a key factor in why it is so difficult to know what the purpose of the speech was, and why it was immediately criticized not only by Albanese’s opponents but also by anyone hoping to undermine confidence in his leadership and a clear message about the facts of the matter.

Another problem. Careless references to time periods have compounded this lack of clarity about basic facts. Are we talking about today, the short term, the medium term or the long term? Or is it all of the above? Who knows?

Some of the time frame references in the speech include: “…for months”; “in these uncertain times”; “in the coming period”; “in the long run”; “next three months”; “in the coming weeks”; “coming months”; “uncertain times”; and in the last item, “Always”. A single formulation should not be used more than once.

This jumble of time references suggests that we are refusing to think through the details of future planning and scenarios, or that we are making a deliberate attempt to not be transparent about future plans. The conclusion was that it was a bit of both: a carelessly constructed speech, nevertheless intended to set the stage for a much more brutal scene over the next month or two.

There are a few other ways the Prime Minister’s speech might not meet basic speech-writing standards, but does it really matter? Yes. The oratory skills of our leaders are important. Their words are extremely important. After all, that’s all they have. Words either come before actions or must come after to explain them.

It is hoped that Albanese’s office will take note of fair criticism of his seriously inadequate speech to the nation and adapt accordingly and quickly.

One Nation voters will need every bit of oratory skill possible to inform and persuade their new legions of the errors of their ways. Mocking them, ignoring them, or thinking it’s just a Coalition problem will not solve the issue. As SA Premier Malinauskas The night of the last SA Election was keenly aware that Labor may have won by a mile nationally, but the biggest swings towards One Nation occurred in Adelaide’s poorest suburbs and regional areas.

Meanwhile, Malinauskas was widely praised for his speech because, unlike the Prime Minister, he used his rhetorical style and content correctly.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.