Every now and then a speech comes along that both defines the era and transcends it.  Comedian Jon Stewart’s recent speech in front of a half-empty congressional hearing on behalf of 911 first responders is such a speech.  Students of public speaking can usefully ponder it for lessons about the craft of both construction and delivery of great public speaking.

As regular readers of this blog will know, I have often talked about our era as being an angry one.  As I argued in my recent book, Can You Hear Me? How to Connect with People in a Virtual World, the anger has something to do with our virtual way of connecting in much of our lives.  We feel freer to express anger online, in social media, and to bots because we don’t get the instant negative human feedback that we do when we express anger face to face.

Anger is one of a handful of powerful emotions that instantly commands attention from other humans because it can mean danger and it is highly contagious.  We are either repulsed or intoxicated by it.  When a speaker evinces anger, our hearts start to race, our blood pressure rises, and we get ready to join in or flee.  Soon we are in the grip of a powerful emotional response, the fight or flight (or freeze) syndrome.  And that demands action from us.

Anger is also charismatic.  We can’t look away from anger and the person embodying it.  Anger imparts a kind of strength that can sweep away objections and carry logic along with it.  Anger is a form of emotional manipulation.

Enter Jon Stewart, appearing on behalf of 911 responders who were made sick by the toxic substances released when the twin towers came down.  Many have already died; Jon’s passion was on behalf of those who are still fighting cancer and other diseases, and on behalf of the memory of those who have died.  It’s a powerful, furious speech.  Here are a few takeaways for public speakers thinking of adding anger to their arsenal of public speaking weapons.

1.Make the anger appropriate to the cause.  Don’t get furious over trivial issues; it makes you look petty.  In this case, the issue is one of life and death and 911, and thus it should call forth our best and most passionate human responses.  Jon’s right on track.  What else, if not for this?

2. Make it personal, if you can. Jon repeatedly calls on the names of first responders who have died, as well as acknowledging those present in the hearing room. It’s appropriate here, because his point is that the fallen were individual human beings who responded rapidly and selflessly to the emergency, ultimately paying the highest price possible, and therefore, as in a funeral oration, their names need to be spoken.  And for those still living, given that their support is running out, continuation of that support is also a matter of life and death.

3. Make the heroes and villains clear and accountable. There are times in public discourse when it makes sense to paper over the worst transgressions in order to bring as many people along with you as possible. This was not one of those times.  Jon took a risk in clearly naming and shaming the Congress for failing repeatedly to act on support for these 911 heroes.  He called out the empty chairs on the dais as a symbol of Congress’s indifference.  And he excoriated those members who did show up as part of the inaction.  So no one was let off the hook.  It’s risky to make this move; you have to be very sure of your moral superiority and your ground.  In this case, Stewart had strong cases for both.  But it’s important to remember that he wasn’t there to make friends, and he almost certainly didn’t make any new ones in that hearing room.

4. In delivery, especially in anger, remember the power of the pause. We measure anger in a variety of ways. The drunk screaming at a cop is one kind of anger.  The fan yelling at a ref is another.  They’re both about venting, not moving people to action.  Stewart’s goal was to move people to action, and so he had to demonstrate that his anger was measured, even reasonable.  He did so by pausing, at some places because he was choked up, and at other places to indicate that he was searching for the right word.  He  kept his tone even, and his pacing conversational.  Had his voice risen to a shriek, or he talked a blue streak, we would have thought he was unhinged and it would have detracted from his message.

5. Use a circular structure, or what comics label ‘callbacks’. One of the most powerful moment in the speech came when, having set up the idea earlier that the first responders did so in 5 seconds, Stewart noted that the Congress has had 18 years to respond to the help these people needed — and it is still in limbo. Stewart had the artistry to set up the 5-second idea and then return to it a few minutes later in the speech after lambasting Congress for its long-term inactivity. Saying, “The first responders did their job in 5 seconds.  Eighteen years later, do yours!”  Stewart wraps up an angry, effective speech. You could see it coming, but it had the intended effect nonetheless.  As a point of logic, one could note that Stewart was comparing two very different human processes, emergency response and legislation, but as an emotional point, it was very moving indeed.

Watch the speech for its constructive use of fury, and for its elegant construction.  It’s too bad Stewart had to give the speech, but it’s a memorable piece of public speaking.