Oratory, the skills thereof--------

Our last great "orator" in the US was Ronald Reagan. He was named the "communicator." The reason Tony Blair is a excellent orator is because he speaks from the heart. Mr Blair has Reagan beat by a mile. c.i.

On the contrary, I think the instant transmission and recognizeability of individuals in the public eye has enhanced, rather than detracted from, the level of public oratory. I just happen to think G.W. Bush is a very obvious, very embarrassing exception to that improvement. His lack of preparation or general knowledge are painfully apparent.

I like the way Blair speaks but I wish he'd rely less on rhetorical devices. He seems to think that if he says the war was justified in an emphatic way that everyone should agree.

John, I think the problem with public oratory is that there are no longer as many role models in the art of speaking with articulation, without losing the sense of the real message. I have noticed that on local news channels here in Florida, anchor people, often cannot read. To me, that is a direct result of a fault in broadcasting. It used to be that good speakers mimicked those on network news. That no longer seems to be the case. We called it rip and read, then. Another thing, elocution has been deemphasized. Tony Blair has that beautiful sound to his voice as so many of those who speak London English have. That's part of his eloquence and the other part is practice.

Ronald Reagan was not nearly as good as John Kennedy, and Kennedy wasn't even an actor. (well, in the movies, anyway)

As to George Bush, he simply can't speak, nor read. Perhaps he couldn't comprehend the documents given to him by the CIA.

Bush's delivery makes me cringe. I try to remind myself that seamless oratory shouldn't be important in a President, ...but I really miss it.

Letty's quote: "As to George Bush, he simply can't speak, nor read. Perhaps he couldn't comprehend the documents given to him by the CIA." That's one possibility I hadn't thought of that could very well be the problem. c.i.

I think a good deal of oratory is life's preparation. M. L. King began his life's career as a minister, and therefore, good oratory skills would serve him in good stead. Even by the rigorous standards of pulpit oratory in the South, he was exceptional. His influence on the Southern Christian Leadership Council can be seen in his political heritors, most notably Jesse Jackson. In the days before radio and television, public speaking was the most popular form of public entertainment. At Gettysburg in November, 1863, Edward Everett, one of the great "superstars" of public speaking in that era, spoke for four hours. Lincoln spoke for a few minutes. The final line of the second of those three brief paragraphs reads: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here." Of course, the irony is that Edward Everett is now largely forgotten, and this speech of Lincoln's is become, seemingly, immortal. As much can be said of King's "I have a dream . . ." speech, and his particular passage: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today." His use of repetition and alliteration are in the finest tradition of the English language, stretching back more than 1500 years to Anglo-Saxon; his delivery style, born of the popular histrionics of the pulpit, and his ability to commit his speeches to memory, looking his auditors in the eyes as he delivered his ideas in dramatic and emotional manner--these all make him one of our nation's great orators.

Oratory depends upon the knowledge of language, the command of literary, historical and scriptural reference, an ability to speak as if extemporaneously, the ability to carry the audience along with one's emotional appeal, to that place where the speaker wishes to deposit their minds. Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt (in terms of vote getting, second only to Washington, who ran unopposed), David Lloyd George, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King all had these abilities. Kennedy could stand on a podium before the Berlin wall, and make a horrible gaffe--Ich bin ein Berliner means "I am a puff-pastry," he ought to have said Ich bin Berliner--but still so carry the crowd with the emotional power of his speech at that moment to draw roars from tens of thousands of throats. Conviction, or the ability to protray conviction, is the base upon which all the other skills are founded.

It should be noted, however, that content is not necessarily a factor. Benito Moussolini and Adolph Hitler were both powerful public speakers.

They had charisma.

One of my favorite presidents was Harry S Truman. He was a terrible orator.

One of my favorite Republican presidents was Dwight Eisenhower -- who also was a terrible orator.

I think Jack Kennedy did a good job as an orator -- and I think Ronald Regan was good also. I think Bill Clinton was excellent.

For me, listening to George Dubya orate is like listening to someone scraping their fingernails along a blackboard. It causes more than just a cringe.

Blair is excellent -- but Blair has to face the English Parliament on a regular basis. All Bush has to impress is Condo Rice.

Setanta. well put, you've done it again. you make very good points about the knowledge of language and your list of orators.
The speech by M L King was oustanding and even when I heard and saw it for the umpteenth time a few months ago it yet again made me feel for the man. he had dignity and prideand he bestowed that on his people.
JFK's Berlin speech was of a similar magnitude. I was working for a London TV Company that was handling the news footage for one of the American Networks sending the footage up to the satelite, so I saw it before most of America did. It was powerfull stuff.

FRank you mention Harry S Truman. He grabbbed hold of the public and was widely claimed for his charisma. I liked the way FDR spoke, another outstanding President.

Of todays men, Colin Powel has always struck me as being an outstanding orator. Very astute and with his finger on the pulse.

Let us not overlook Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. A truly great orater and master of the spoken word!

My favorite was Everette Dirkson of Illinois. His comment on the budget: "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up!" (sometime in the early 60's)

Now we have the era of the sound bite and "Duh!"

The pity about MLK's speeches is that much of the powerful, but controversial pieces have been forgotten. People don't seem to want to hear or remember that the man was a revolutionary, who was fiery against the war in Vietnam, and for economic enfranchisement. Much of his memory has been co-opted by the right, and bastardized into a few sound bytes they can twist into some wretched defense of their ideas of "reverse discrimination".

(I know that was off-subject, but I had a hot flash- maybe its male menopause)

I think that oratory is less important than it used to be because we generally get a sound bite. One or two sentences. You don't need to be a good orator for that.

In my lifetime, the best US orators, imo, were Kennedy, MLK, and Mario Cuomo.

Ah Roberta, the sound bite is but a stale biscuit compared to the gourmet meal offered by a linguist and an orator

oldandknew--Too true. No context. No real information. No nuttin'. Also, I now know that a biscuit to you is a cookie to me.

We're living in a world of sound bites, photo ops, and spinmeisters. One of my ESL students asked me to explain "spin." After fumfering around for a while, I had to concede that it means lying--more or less, give or take.

Roberta, very true what you say.

I like biscuits with a layer of chocolate on them as well, tho chocolate chip cookies are very nice too.

Your student who asked what spin is, perhaps you should of teased him & said spin is what a baseball pitcher or cricket bowler applies to the ball to deceive the batter. It might of softened the blow.

Martin Luther King had a bad, bad effect on presidents oratorically. King was a genuine, articulate, educated, practiced and above all sincere speaker with a minister's phrasing. The genuine article. His imitators have none of his abilities nor his sincerity, and have used his words and phrasings as completely inappropriate rhetorical flourishes. Cynical. Almost criminal. Blair is refreshing (for me) because English is a familiar language to him, something which cannot be said of Bush.

I just corrected a typo there. I'd typed "bush" and then went back to uppercase the B. Bush. Now I'm thinking, why bother to capitalize. He doesn't deserve it.

"bush" is so much more appropriate.

The following link provides the last speech made by Martin Luther King, Jr.
To me it is his most powerful and deserving of a reading, especially the last paragraph. The man was stentorian, and not in the general sense of the definition, but in the sense of being larger than life.:

http://www.drmartinlutherkingjr.com/promised.htm