The Lost Art of Public Speaking

Questionnaire

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:56:47 +0000

This questionnaire is not designed as a guide in building a speech, but merely as a series of checks on the speech as prepared.

Subject.

Just what do you aim to accomplish by this speech? Can you summarize your purpose in one compact sentence?
Are you trying to cover too much ground? Can you make your point in the allotted time?
Are you sure that you are within the issues of the campaign? If not, are you justified in digressing from them?
Is your subject of vital interest to the audience you will address? If not, can you make them interested in it?
Are you thoroughly familiar with every angle of your subject? Are you prepared to discuss any phase of it with any opponent?

Material.

Are you using real facts and arguments? Are you relying too much on your feelings?
Are you going to use figures or statistics? If so, can you present them in graphic and interesting fashion?
Will any of your material antagonize any portion of your audience?
Are you going to tell any stories or anecdotes? If so, are they in point? Will they serve your purpose?
Can you strengthen any argument by quoting a well known man?
If you are going to mention a candidate by name, are you prepared to give the audience an insight into his human side? How much do you know about him?
Is your material of especial interest to the locality in which you will speak? How much local color have you put into it? How much do you know about the community?
Is your material selected merely to draw applause from your adherents? Will it give the wavering and independent voter something to think about? Will it give the audience “something to take home?”
Can you make use of repetition and suggestion?
How much do you know about the people you will address? Will your arguments be clear to everyone? Are they as simple as you can make them?
Have you tested the effectiveness of your arguments in conversation?
Are your arguments in keeping with the latest turn of the campaign?

Construction.

How are you going to begin? Will your opening gain attention? Will you begin on neutral ground so as to avoid the possibility of antagonizing anyone? Have you prepared several openings so as to be ready for any situation which might confront you when you rise to speak?
Can you outline your entire speech? Does the sequence of your ideas strike you as logical and effective?
Is your speech constructed so as to drive home the central idea? Are you sure that it is not too heavy? Can you not lighten it in spots by humor or anecdote?
Are you prepared to close on a moment’s notice? Have you prepared an ending that will leave a single, strong impression?

Delivery.

Have you memorized the speech or merely the outline?
Are you physically fit for the occasion? What are you doing to preserve your voice?
Will you take the floor with confidence and courage? Are you ready to give the best that is in you?

The Work of the Speakers’ Bureau

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:48:43 +0000

The effectiveness of a speaking campaign in any locality rests to a considerable extent with the committee in charge of the speakers’ bureau. Its duties are similar to those of a sales manager, but rarely does a political committee in this activity attain the standard of efficiency maintained by even a semi-successful business enterprise. As conducted, most speakers’ bureaus are merely clearing houses for applicants.

Some conductors of political gatherings seem to work on the theory of managers of vaudeville houses,—the more speakers the merrier! One good speaker with a well prepared speech is infinitely more effective than a dozen who merely say “I’m glad to be here” and then run to the next meeting. Of course, one of the main purposes of a political gathering is to enable the electorate to see and hear the candidates. But if the evening can be so arranged that those who merely appear as exhibits will speak first so as to allow the real campaigner to have the floor long enough to make a real speech, the results would be far greater.

More attention should be paid to the development of new speakers. Every district club has half a dozen men who have the makings of effective campaigners. If the county committee would co-operate with all the local organizations in encouraging young men to train for the stump, there would never be a dearth of speakers. Every county or assembly district should maintain a school for ambitious political workers. It takes courage to make the first political speech and many men of promising capabilities are prevented from developing into useful workers because of the failure to provide a training camp where they can find themselves and attain that degree of self-confidence without which they hesitate to take the first step. One night a week for a period of four months will accomplish much toward giving poise and necessary polish. That there is no more fascinating activity than the study of public speaking is evidenced by the popularity of the Y. M. C. A. Course in “Public Speaking”, even among those who have no intention of using the art on a platform.

The dearth of speakers in a campaign frequently results in sending out untried and unknown volunteers to address noonday gatherings of men and women in sections of the community where the most enlightened portions of the electorate are found. Such a practice is most dangerous; one crank, charged with only prejudices and fallacies, can turn more votes from his cause than a host of experienced workers can convert to it.

Arranging the program for any given meeting should receive the highest consideration, not only in the selection of the speakers but in the variety and assignment of subjects. How many audiences are wearied by a succession of speakers repeating the same arguments on the same issues.

The most encouraging argument for the future of political speaking in the United States is the business-like attitude with which our newly-enfranchised women undertake their work in a campaign. Whether because of inherent thoroughness or because of the consciousness that to them political speaking is a new art which must be learned from the bottom up, many organizations of women have gone about the task of equipping their members for the platform in a very scientific fashion. They have formed schools for the training of speakers; they invite experienced campaigners to address them on points of appeal and their cross examination of a veteran convinces him of the intensity of their ambition and determination to make their speaking fruitful.

Keeping Fit

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:44:40 +0000

Daily campaigning means an intense strain on your mental and physical powers—strong men have been known to crack under it. In order to make a strong fight and to maintain its vigor up to the close of the campaign, you must conserve what energy you can and keep in the best physical condition.

The mental strain, particularly to the candidate, is not easily relieved. The man running for office makes the fight of his life, throwing aside every other interest for the time. This concentration of all one’s mental energies can be carried too far. When the mind is engaged on one subject day in and day out to the exclusion of all others, the brain is likely to become “jumpy” and the judgment warped. It was this very thing that brought about the downfall of Senator La Follette’s candidacy for the presidency in 1912. One bitter attack on the press, made in a condition of nervous exhaustion, scattered a following that had been gathered in months of campaigning. Roosevelt was accustomed to carrying a small library on his speaking tours. Parts of each day were given to the study of subjects far from the field of politics. Such a practice is almost as beneficial to the mind as sleep. While engaged in matters outside the campaign, the mental muscles used in speaking and political thinking have an opportunity to repair themselves; then when we return to the all important subject, we can attack it with renewed vigor. Above all, do not take your political problems to bed with you. Thinking in bed means worry and worry destroys everything it touches.

The state of your physical condition is usually reflected by the quality of your thinking. An alert, combative mind is rarely found in a sickly body. If you would keep your mind fit, you must maintain a high standard of health.

You have probably learned as much about your body and how to keep it fit as any physician. It is well, nevertheless, to call attention to a few points regarding health. The stomach, of course, should receive the first consideration. Only foods easily digested should be eaten and eaten slowly. Refrain from intense application immediately after a meal. Smoking before eating tends to excite the nerves and to impair appetite and digestion. Excessive smoking is very harmful to the throat and voice. Keep the bowels open. If you feel nervous or too energetic on retiring, take a hot bath and drink a glass of warm milk. A sleepless night in bed is as bad as working all night.

Some men are blessed with strong voices which can not only carry to all parts of a huge auditorium but also stand continued use without any noticeable tiring. But with the average speaker preserving the voice is always a problem. The trouble lies not so much with any inherent weakness in the vocal organs as with their improper use. If the speaker would fill his lungs from the bottom up, as a bottle is filled, instead of throwing the air into the apex of the lungs—if he allowed the throat and jaw to relax and made the tongue form the sounds—if he threw the voice against the upper front teeth and thereby made use of the nasal cavity as a sounding board instead of forcing the sound with the muscles of the throat, he would never be troubled with loss of voice, even if he spoke eight hours a day. But unless you have already learned the proper use of the voice, you are going to be too busy to learn the art from the bottom up for this campaign. The thing that interests you now is how, assuming that you use your voice incorrectly, you can make it last throughout the campaign.

Much can be done by preventing slight colds. When you rise in the morning, exercise the muscles of your neck for two or three minutes. Roll it around, bend it in every possible direction—it won’t break. After your bath, dash cold water on your neck and chest. This daily habit will harden the muscles of your throat to the point where it will stand the most inclement weather; it has cured many cases of chronic sore throat.

You have seen many advertisements setting forth the wonderful powers of certain lozenges and throat sprays. Many of them are accompanied by the pictures and testimonials of opera singers and actors. If half of them are true, it is a wonder how many of our stage celebrities find time to do anything but try cures and write testimonials. The late Dr. H. Holbrook Curtis, throat specialist, was consulted by nearly all the concert singers in New York as well as by prominent speakers and among them Roosevelt. He usually prescribed voice exercises, the most common of which was humming the scale up and down.

How many times have we envied the speaker with the rich, resonant voice that seemed to fill the room like a church organ. You can acquire some of that resonance if you will but make use of the human sounding board,—the nasal cavity. That undesirable tone of voice which we call “speaking through the nose” is the result of closing the air passage between the back of the mouth and the nose. When we open up this passage and use the sounding board, the effect is similar to that of talking in a rain barrel.

A great deal can be accomplished in this direction by keeping open the air passages which connect the mouth, nose and ears. Wax in the ears and dust in the nose and nasal cavity rob the voice of the bell-like ring just as rags in a cornet muffle its tones. A little salt and water gently snuffed up in the morning and a weekly application of warm water and soda to the ears will be of great help to the voice.

Professor Robert J. Hughes, the voice specialist, prescribes a very simple exercise for encouraging the proper use of the voice in speaking. A few seconds given to it two or three times a day, immediately before speaking if possible, will prove its value. Take a deep breath and hum “minim” continuously, prolonging the m’s and n’s.

Keeping Abreast of the Battle Lines

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:39:17 +0000

The lines of a political fight, like those of a battle, are subject to constant change. The issues remain the same, unless the candidates add new ones, but the points of contact are constantly shifting from one phase of an issue to another.

The political speaker should keep abreast of the lines, so that he can direct his efforts where they are most needed and meet the demands of the independent voter that follows the campaign day to day. Something more than daily reading of the newspapers is necessary. The press, or that small part of it which does not print its feelings rather than the facts, tries to hold up the mirror to the real situation. But it frequently misinterprets the thoughts of the electorate.

Two other checks should be added to newspaper reading. First, keep in touch with the local political organization in charge of speakers. It can give you the latest news from headquarters; it has means of advising you on all new methods of attack and defense. Second, attend meetings held by the opposition. Unless you know the arguments and tactics of your opponents, how are you going to make the most effective appeal to the man who does?

Making Your Candidate Popular

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:36:23 +0000

“I have no politics, I vote for the best man,” is a common utterance among voters. It represents a large part of our political thinking. Many veterans of the political game assert that if the issues in any campaign could be wholly divorced from the personalities who champion them, the number of votes cast would be very small. When we consider how few men and women take the trouble to vote on proposed amendments to our state constitutions, there seems to be little to say against the theory that the electorate is much more interested in the officials it chooses than the policies for which they stand.

Many political speakers engage in a campaign merely to aid the cause of some local candidate for an administrative or judicial office in which policies play no part. For such a campaigner, the problem of how to make his candidate the most popular man in the field is the important task.

The extensive use of such simple posters as “Vote for Smith for Governor”, “Keep Judge Williams on the Bench”, “Elect Wirth Alderman”, proves the value of keeping a candidate’s name before the public. General praise of a man and his abilities from the stump does the same thing. But the electorate hears and sees so much of that, is flooded by so much literature and advertising, that it demands something more from the political speaker. Give them an intimate knowledge of the candidate, show them a “close-up” of the human man. One simple story of the man’s life which brings out the characteristics which the public desires in a public official will accomplish more than hours of flowery eulogy.

In the campaign of 1920, hardly a day passed in which the dailies did not print on the front sheet, some anecdote in the life of Senator Harding and Governor Cox. The cold, calculating voter may not be interested in whether Senator Harding was born in a log cabin or whether Governor Cox began life as a printer. But the public generally enjoys reading these human-interest” stories about their next President, and that is why the publication of these news items was encouraged by the supporters of the two candidates. They serve to bring home to the American voters the human sides of their candidates. By reading these little stories, the public becomes acquainted with the men apart from their politics; and long before election has come, they will speak of them with an intimacy that would indicate a life-long friendship and each fresh incident in his strenuous life gave him a larger place in the hearts of his countrymen.

Many men and women who never saw Theodore Roosevelt speak of him and his career as they would of a member of their family. Nothing he did escaped the press, and each fresh incident in his strenuous life gave him a larger place in the hearts of his countrymen.

Every candidate is human; each has some feature of character or ability which, made known, will win him greater consideration in the minds of the voters. If you would make your candidate popular, study his life, his character and his accomplishments, and present the facts on the stump with all the color and details that truth and the occasion permit.

Speaking Outdoors

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:29:21 +0000

Speaking in the open is both disagreeable and difficult, but it offers one of the best opportunities to the campaigner to attain the prime aim—the conversion of votes. It is difficult and disagreeable because of the counter attractions, the noise, the fact that the audience is always changing, the prevalence of hecklers and the strain on the voice. But you meet there all types of political thinkers and many of them would never hear your arguments were you to confine your activities to halls and auditoriums.

You must accept the counter attractions and the noise as you tolerate the petty annoyances of daily existence. You can minimize the turn-over of your audience by observing those virtues of speaking that hold the attention. Tell many stories, but no long ones. Make each argument brief and right to the point. Never relax into a digression. Speak in language so simple that the smallest child in the street can understand you. Begin on neutral ground and maintain an attitude of fairness toward your opponents.

Here you must adopt different tactics in dealing with the heckler. He probably represents a larger portion of the audience than the man who interrupts your speech indoors. If you can squelch him by a quick retort, do so. If you cannot, treat him courteously. An attitude of fairness toward him might strengthen an otherwise weak position. You are not there, however, to hold a joint debate with every comer. Never Answer more than one question asked by any one man or from any one part of the audience. As soon as you have replied to one interruption, turn to another sector of the audience. The latter practice tends to decrease interruptions and to prevent any one portion of the audience from monopolizing your attention to the exclusion and dissatisfaction of the other. Nothing will break up an outdoor audience more quickly than a situation which confines the attention of the speaker to one small portion of it. If you are beset with too many interruptions, say that you would like to answer all questions as they arise, but that in fairness to those who want to hear you, it is requested that they withhold their questions until you have completed your speech, when you will be glad to meet them all. This strikes the average citizen as a fair proposition. It usually solves the problem. And if it does not silence the hecklers, it is more than likely that the audience will. When you have finished your speech, you will find few to question you. And if there are any, you can meet them aside and discuss the question man to man, while your successor takes the stump. When speaking in a neighborhood where heckling is common, many speakers scatter their coworkers through the audience for the purpose of engaging the heckler as soon as he speaks.

The strain on the voice in outdoor speaking is very well known by those who have attempted it. It is due, not as commonly supposed to the night air, but to the necessity of making yourself heard above the noise and without the aid of the acoustic properties of a hall or auditorium; and also to the lack of knowledge as to whether you are using your voice in a proper manner. With walls to throw back the sound, it is easy to detect the unnatural tones which injure the muscles of the throat. Outside, you must rely on the opinion of those who hear you. Station a friend at the outskirts of the circle. Let him signal you as to the carrying power of your voice and as to whether, in his opinion, you are using unnatural tones. It is the only method of conserving your voice.

The Heckler

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:14:51 +0000

The late Inez Milholland Boissevain was once interrupted by a man with this question, “Mrs. Boissevain, don’t you wish you were a man?” “I do”, she replied, “and don’t you wish you were?”

The retort was not very kind, but that greatest of nuisances, the heckler, deserves anything, verbal or physical, which his conduct provokes. He is usually of a low type of mentality, actuated by destructive motives and encouraged by only the basest elements in our political parties.

The speaker who answers a heckler usually does so for one of two reasons. First, he feels that his position as a champion of a party or candidate demands that he answer all questions. Second, he hopes to add to his prestige by outwitting an opponent. As to the first, he is clearly wrong. The majority of the audience is more than friendly to the speaker. It has assembled to hear him speak and not debate with any self-appointed opponent. Moreover, it has no interest in the heckler. Its regard for him is usually one of contempt and impatience. “How much are you getting for this speech?” asked a man of W. Bourke Cockran, and the latter snapped back, “How much are you getting to interrupt me?” That retort might well have been uttered by a member of the audience.

The second reason for recognizing a heckler, the desire to gain by the exchange of wit, is too dangerous. Unless you are a master of repartee, the chances are that you will not so completely squelch your man as to gain by it. Once engaged, you must continue the give-and-take or you will appear defeated. And even with an even break, you lose—both in personal prestige and by the digression from your speech.

The better rule is to ignore all hecklers. If he persists in his questioning, the audience will dispose of him by physical force if necessary. Then you have lost nothing. If, later in your speech, you can think of a retort which fits into the trend of your argument, put it in and direct it to the heckler. You have then accomplished your purpose, with dignity and without encouraging further interruption.

If, however, the question is such that you can make a point by a quick reply, do not pass up the opportunity. Frequently a hostile audience or one which is only half friendly may be won over by a clever retort such as Roscoe Conkling made in a speech in Utica, New York, during the days when slavery was a burning issue.

“Mr. Conkling”, piped a shrill voice from the gallery, “do you believe that a white man should marry a colored woman?”

“Will the man who asked that question please rise and repeat it?” answered Conkling. There was nothing to do but comply with the request. After a second’s visual appraisal, the speaker smilingly replied,

“My little man, if the woman hasn’t any objection, I haven’t.”

Speaking Outdoors

Hints on Delivery

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:09:55 +0000

Confidence and Earnestness

Write on your doors the saying wise and old,
“Be bold! be bold!” and everywhere—”Be bold;
Be not too bold!” Yet better the excess
Than the defect; better the more than less;
Better like Hector in the field to die,
Than like a perfumed Paris turn and fly

—Longfellow.

We hear a great deal about men who succeed on “nerve” alone, men who are always “getting away with something”. There may be men who bluff their way into success; there may be such a thing as luck that lifts one man above the heads of others who are abler than he is. But one thing is certain,—those who complain about “bluff” and “nerve” are usually the unsuccessful, and their opinions are to be regarded accordingly.

Wherever we put the dividing line between bluff and courage, there is no denying the fact that few men have succeeded without a deep-seated belief in themselves. No speaker ever convinced others unless he exhibited an abiding confidence in himself and his judgment. Nothing in a campaign is so effective as an attitude of trust in the success of the party and its candidates. “Fortune”, said Sophocles, “never helps the man whose courage fails”; it does even less for the party whose confidence lags or weakens.

Always assume that your side will be successful. It not only wins over the man who wants to “get on the band-wagon”, it also eats away the courage of your opponents. The whole world may love a lover, but it, at least that part of it living in the United States, idolizes a fighter of courage. But self-confidence is as far from boastfulness as chivalry is from savagery. Extravagant prophecy or excessive self-confidence often links the speaker with the dreamer whose beliefs are the children of his fancy. The confidence that carries conviction never runs wild. It sometimes uses suggestion. Mr. Bryan repeated his assertion about McKinley and Waterloo every night of the campaign, and it undoubtedly had its effect. Senator Hiram W. Johnson’s prophecy was shorn of boastfulness by the addition of his intention to “kick out” William F. Herrin and the Southern Pacific Railroad.

Successful campaigners never spare their earnestness and enthusiasm, even when speaking of a minor issue. No campaign and no issue in any campaign was ever treated lightly by Roosevelt. If a fight was worth his participation, it was worth every ounce of earnestness he possessed, and he spent it lavishly. When, in the summer of 1910, while swinging “around the circle” in an effort to strengthen the support of the progressives in Congress, he addressed an audience in Utica, New York, his attention was called to the fight being made against the renomination of Senator Frederick M. Davenport. In the middle of his speech on “New Nationalism”, he launched into a paragraph of praise for Senator Davenport and his stand on direct primaries and other state issues. So earnest was his appeal for Davenport that when the speech was completed and the Colonel was leaving, the crowd called for Davenport. He was renominated.

Whatever your subject, be it disarmament or the election of your candidate for town clerk, deliver it with all the earnestness and enthusiasm that your soul can muster.

Speaking to the Eye

The eye is a hungry animal—a great deal more so than the ear. That is why a janitor closing a window can take the attention of an audience from a great orator. A cat or dog straying across a stage spells disaster for any theatrical performance. This fact gives rise to many suggestions for holding the eye as well as the ear of your hearers.

Have you ever heard a good speech read? Probably not. The reason why it rarely succeeds is that the audience is just as much interested in the personality and appearance of the speaker as it is in what he says; and what he says is always interpreted by the manner and motions which accompany it. It is safe to assume that no stump speaker will attempt to read a speech. But he often does other things which have a similar effect. Carrying a manuscript or a sheet of notes in the hand or permitting them to protrude conspicuously from a pocket tends to distract attention from what is said. An article of clothing which stands out from the rest of the attire weakens the focus that you would have the audience give to your gestures and facial expression. If possible, speak from a platform free from other speakers and attractive objects. The slightest motion on the part of an individual seated near you may break the concentration of the audience.

The movies and other spectacular attractions have accustomed us to such a high degree of visual satisfaction that the modern speaker must feed the eye as well as the ear. Gestures, facial expression, posture and carriage on a platform are merely elements of that silent appeal. All are parts of the speaking body which must be kept awake and alive. The speaker who allows his muscular body to sleep while he talks has little more chance of holding his audience than a drama produced on a darkened stage.

Speaking to All Parts of the House

As previously stated, an audience is as much interested in the man as it is in the speech. If you doubt it, obstruct the vision of some persons in the auditorium or hall and see how quickly they will complain. They not only want to see the speaker, but they want him to look at and speak directly to them. It is, of course, a physical impossibility to speak to all parts of the audience at the same time. But it is a simple and proper practice to direct some part of your talk to a specific part of the meeting place,—the boxes, the balcony, the gallery and even to those who are seated on the platform behind you, if such is the arrangement. The latter part of the audience always received a few sentences from Theodore Roosevelt. The effect was so favorable that it is surprising that more political speakers do not imitate the practice.

What to Memorize

Many beginning speakers memorize their speeches word for word, a practice which persisted in will greatly limit the possibilities of their development. There are three good reasons why a speech should not be memorized. First, only a skillful actor can do it and conceal it. When an audience detects it, its respect for the speaker is diminished. There is a subconscious feeling that you are not speaking from your heart; perhaps someone wrote it for you and you are merely the phonograph. Second, if you have memorized a speech, you must spend a certain amount of energy—usually considerable—in recalling while speaking the exact words you intended. This energy should be free to expend on the delivery. Relying on your memory, you are ever conscious of the danger of forgetting; and if you do, your confidence will suffer regardless of whether you are able to extemporize until you pick up the thread of your chosen words. In the third place, the practice will prevent the development of that ability, so highly to be prized, of thinking while on your feet. The ability to put present thoughts into appropriate language can only be gained by repeated practice in doing that very thing. And the longer you persist in memorizing speeches, the harder it becomes to start anew on the proper course.

“But”, says the novice, “unless I memorize my speech, how can I go upon the platform with any degree of confidence in my chances of remembering what I want to say?” There is some point in that question. Without memorizing, you must be content at the start to bear the handicaps of poorly chosen words, hesitant groping for language and frequent pauses. But these obstacles are only temporary; every additional attempt will find you more confident and fluent.

Most speakers of experience memorize the outline of their speeches. A well prepared talk can usually be summarized by four or five sentences. Each sentence has a key word. Memorize these words in their proper sequence and you have the outline in hand regardless of whether you have difficulty in expressing each idea in appropriate phrases. Take, for instance, a speech which was delivered against our entrance into the League of Nations when that issue was before the United States Senate. The four main arguments which the speaker used could have been summarized in the following sentences,—

The League entangles us in foreign affairs, a situation which Washington and all our foremost statesmen warned against.
The League does not give America sufficient representation in its councils.
The League makes us responsible for peoples in whom we have little interest and over whom we would not care to exercise control.
In order to carry out our obligations as a member of the League, we would be compelled to maintain a large standing army.

Now the first sentence may be reduced to the word “Washington”. His name in connection with the subject arouses our recollection of his warning against foreign alliances. The second sentence can be summarized in the word “votes”. The Fiume incident suggests the thought of the third sentence, so we take the word “Fiume”. “Army” is sufficient for the fourth. Putting the four words together we have “Washington votes Fiume army”. It does not make much sense—it need not. But it is easily remembered, and remembered, it links the whole speech together so that the speaker can go from one part to another without fear of losing the sequence.

This is but one of many methods of holding the outline of a speech in mind. Mark Twain, who found public speaking very difficult until he solved the problem of speaking without notes, used to associate each subdivision of his lecture with some object in the room. Your imagination will suggest many other methods. Any scheme which works is good, but above all, do not carry notes.

The Place of Stories and Humor

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:57:50 +0000

In one respect we never cease to be children. Rarely does a man or woman reach that age or condition where he or she loses the appetite for a good story. Americans as a class are particularly fond of this form of mental activity; for it they are known the world over.

The psychological effect of bringing together a number of people into a body which focuses its attention on one of its number is to carry each back to that period of life when simple things held and amused. When in the theatre we laugh at many things which would be unheeded if we were alone; we are interested in little acts which only a child would watch unaccompanied.

Story-telling has always been a popular seasoning with the public speaker. It serves many purposes. First, it brings together every ray of attention. Second, it rests an audience by enabling it to follow the speaker with a minimum of mental effort. Third, it enables the speaker to clarify or strengthen an idea in a very effective manner.

It can, however, be overdone—and frequently is. But most political speakers use it very little—to their own loss. Nothing will brighten a speech, particularly a long one, so well as two or three well told stories in point. If they are suitable to the occasion and you are able to tell them, by all means do so. But if your stories have no connection or a weak one, do not waste time trying to link them up with the subject matter of your talk. Nothing harms a speaker’s reputation like a story dragged in by the ears.

Stories may or may not be humorous. The humorous story has the added advantage of refreshing the audience. The world likes to laugh and that part of it which you are addressing is ever ready for a good joke.

A Republican, addressing an audience in Vermont, attacked the Democratic administration for its “Buy a bale of cotton” movement. The frequent interruptions by way of heckling indicated that his hearers did not agree with him. The resentment became so audible that the speaker was forced to change his plans. His next remark was to the effect that the next Democratic slogan would be “Eat a bale of cotton.” Everyone joined in the hearty laugh. The speaker continued his humorous attack without any further interruptions.

This incident well illustrates the temper of an American audience. If you attack a movement or a man whom they like, they might hoot you from the platform. But you can go a great way with ridicule and burlesque and they will enjoy it, even though your humor is aimed at their idol. If you are opposing a candidate whose popularity is too strong for an attack, your best weapon is humor. A clever use of this method was made by Mr. Hughes in the campaign of 1916. The unofficial role of Col. House in the administration had been the subject of much comment. Of course, there was nothing in his relations with the President which would warrant any serious attack on either. In reply to an attack on himself, Mr. Hughes added, “But I say with entire good humor that I believe in government by two houses and not by three.”

Americans take their politics rather seriously and it is this seriousness which calls for relief through humor. The parties are always looking for men like Senator Depew and Job E. Hedges to aid in a speaking campaign. Their usefulness was unconsciously appraised by Mr. Hedges himself. Running for governor of New York in 1912, he opened an address in these words, “They say that the Republicans have nominated a joker for governor (referring to himself). Well, the joker is the best card in the pack.”

Opening and Closing

Admin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:51:26 +0000

Victor Murdock once said, apropos of making a good speech, “Get a good beginning and a good ending; stuff it with whatever you please.” This statement was not intended to be taken literally; you cannot stuff the middle of any speech with mediocre material and make it impressive. But the remark does give point to the great truth that the most important parts of any talk are the beginning and the ending.

To the political speaker the problem of opening an address presents two points of consideration. First, he must secure attention; second, he must not antagonize any portion of his audience.

Securing attention is an ever present consideration in the mind of a speaker. He probably gives more thought to the subject matter of his first sentences than he does to any other part of the address. Unless he succeeds in focusing the attention of his hearers upon himself from the start, he wages an uphill fight. Every man has his own individual ideas about the method to be employed, but he may well be aided by a few suggestions.

Nothing is more effective in beginning than a good story in point. I said “in point” because it is always possible to tell a story provided you are not limited to relevant ones. But if your story is merely told to gain attention and has no connection with what follows, your audience will turn away from you just as quickly as it deserts the street faker who gathers a crowd by some alluring device and then presents some cheap notion in which no one is interested. The story need not be political; in fact, it is better to take it from some other field of human interest. The latter course has the advantage of introducing a refreshing subject.

A good quotation taken from the speeches or writings of some well-known man or woman is an excellent opener. People are always interested in the words of a great personage. And in quoting the words of a great man you command some of the respect that your hearers hold for that man. Very few of the opponents of the League of Nations failed to quote Washington’s advice regarding entangling alliances. Here again, your quotation must have a close connection with what follows, otherwise you will lose more than you gain by its use.

Above all, your opening remarks should be interesting. A startling statement rarely fails to secure attention. The preceding speaker has probably left the audience in a satisfied, complacent mood. Unless you present something unusual it is difficult to transfer their thoughts from him to you.

Humor is always refreshing, particularly when the previous speaker has aroused them to a pitch of excitement on some intensely serious issue.

Long introductions should always be avoided. Modern life is too rapid and strenuous to tolerate the man who cannot begin a speech without tracing the history of the world from the fall of Adam. With this in mind, many experienced speakers save time by stating at the beginning what they intend to talk about and, in many instances, outline the main points of the address.

You can never know what will be the temper or mood of your hearers when you begin. For this reason it is an excellent plan to prepare yourself with three or four kinds of openings, so that you will be ready for any emergency. If, then, you find yourself talking to an audience which has not been aroused by many pyrotechnical speeches, you can select the opening which best fits your speech as a whole. And if you follow an inspired orator who has stirred them to the depths, a most trying position for a beginning speaker, you will not be embarrassed by the necessity of digressing from your original plan in order to meet the psychology of the moment. When in such a position, do not show your fears of losing the crowd. It is likely that you will be discouraged by the stream of men and women leaving the hall. Do not hasten your opening. It will gain you nothing. Haste at such a time usually adds to the confusion and strengthens the decision to go.

The second consideration in framing the beginning of your speech is equally important. Remember that your purpose is not merely to furnish opportunities for enthusiastic outbursts from your supporters. You must also convert the so-called independent who forms a larger part of the audience than his silence would indicate. He probably hears both sides. If your opening remarks are too partisan from his viewpoint, he will close his ears to the rest of your speech.

Every issue presents common ground. After all, every voter has or thinks he has the same interest at heart—the welfare of his country. It is a simple matter to begin a speech in a manner which will appeal to the fairness of all. From such a beginning you can gradually turn to your side of the issue in a way that will carry the independent as well as the partisan with you.

Few speakers of experience fail to take advantage of the possibilities of opening on neutral ground. Sometimes, however, a hostile audience is best met by an initial “blow between the eyes.” A classical example of such an opening may well be given here.

In the national campaign of 1900, Theodore Roosevelt, then a candidate for Vice-President, was sent into Nebraska, the home of Bryan and Free Silver. The press of that State commented at length on the folly of his speaking there and the first audience he addressed assembled more from a spirit of curiosity than because of any friendliness. How could he speak without mentioning the monetary issue, and how could he mention that issue without arousing the antagonism of all present? A death-like silence greeted his arrival. He broke the tension with these words, biting off each syllable with characteristic precision,—

“Ladies and Gentlemen:—The Republican Party stands for the Gold Standard; and it stands for the Gold Standard in the State of Nebraska just as it stands for the Gold Standard in the State of New York.”

A handful applauded, many burst into tears; all remained until he had finished his speech. At no time did he receive appreciable applause, but a member of that audience subsequently stated that the respectful silence with which they heard him was nothing short of a reverential tribute such as is rarely paid to living heroes.

Of all the impressions made by a speaker the very last is most likely the one which remains uppermost in recollection. If it is weak, it may destroy all the good effect previously gained; if it is strong, it will probably draw to its level all the mediocrity of what has been said in the body of the speech.

The ideal ending is one which summarizes everything which has been said and couples with that summary a compelling appeal to vote for the ticket or the candidate for whom you are speaking. This appeal may take the form of a flowery picture of what the victory of your cause will bring or it may be clothed in a good story or quotation. Unless the whole tone of your speech is humorous, never end in anything but a serious fashion.

Most political speakers must time their efforts to the particular occasion on which they appear. It is the frequent experience of junior campaigners to be interrupted by the applause which greets the entrance of a well-known figure. Then he must stop or try the patience of his audience by continuing. Better that he wind up his speech as soon as he can without making the ending too sharp or abrupt. This ever-present danger can only be met by a most thorough preparation for it. After you have gained your stride, never turn into a long stretch which will require considerable time to cover. So plan your speech that you can end it with a flourish on a minute’s notice.

Webster spent many hours on the preparation of his speeches. His command of language was so masterful that he rarely paid any attention to the exact words to be employed in expressing any particular part of it. But he always worked out and memorized a strong closing paragraph.