It’s impossible to be neutral while evaluating a speech, especially a political speech.
A speech doesn’t simply report facts or make an objective assessment of things as they are.
A speech expresses the speaker’s values, vision, character.
Any speech worth listening to takes a stand. It develops an idea. It promotes an agenda.
A speech, if it is to have any impact at all, provokes a response from the audience. Consent or dissent. Cooperation or opposition. Support or resistance.
And that’s how it should be.
A speech shouldn’t be neutral.
It’s true for political speeches. And it’s true for corporate speeches.
(One of the reasons why so many corporate speeches are bland, boring, and instantly forgettable is because business speakers try so hard to avoid controversy of any sort.)
And people’s reactions to a speech reveal their values, vision, character.
For example, I think the speech by Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, explaining why the city was removing the city’s Confederate monuments, is one of the best political speeches I’ve heard in months.
I found it thoughtful, courageous, and morally exigent.
Landrieu’s speech was well written. It asserted a thesis and defended it with logic, evidence, and passion. It employed several powerful rhetorical devices. It was clear, without being simplistic.
And it was well delivered.
I like Landrieu’s speech not simply because he articulated my beliefs and values, but also because he expanded my moral vision.
You know from his speech exactly where Landrieu stands on race. And the fact that I consider it such a good speech says a lot about where I stand on race as well.
In a similar vein, I hated President Trump’s speech, announcing his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change. And, again, my reaction reveals my values. As it should.
