I’m taking a day off from the discussion of the Public Words Speaker Forum 2010 to talk about President Obama’s Oil Speech. The speech illustrated both the extent and the limitations of the presidential forum, and it’s worth study in both its rhetorical and non-verbal aspects.
The speech divided broadly into 3 parts: first, the spill and the immediate reaction. Second, the recovery and compensation. Third, the longer term and the overall energy challenge. These 3 parts were followed by a curiously weak conclusion invoking prayer to get through the damage that the most massive oil rig explosion and leak in history is wreaking.
Overall, the speech was well-written and reasonably well delivered, as we have come to expect from President Obama, a gifted communicator. But something is missing from President Obama that candidate Obama had in plenty: confidence, energy, enthusiasm.
We’ve come not to expect passion from this president, but if ever there was a moment for a leader to get angry, or fired up, this was that moment. This speech was simply too buttoned-down for the occasion.
Obama was at his most passionate only during a couple of passages in the speech – and they were the wrong places. First, when he said, “for decades, we’ve talked and talked,” his voice rose and we saw a touch of impatience. It’s a curious moment to get worked up about considering that we’re watching the most destructive oil spill in history dump barrels of crude and gas into the Gulf minute by minute on a live cam. Second, a minute later in the speech, as Obama talked about alternative energy solutions, he said, “people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows,” and gave the closest approximation to spontaneous animation in his voice and gestures seen in the entire speech. Again, a curious moment to become enthusiastic, but perhaps it tells us something about the priorities of this president.
In truth, the speech reads better than it sounds or looks. By sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, President Obama meant to convey the gravity of the situation. But the effect on a speech about something that all of us feel as viscerally as we do – especially, I imagine, people in the Gulf states – was to undercut it. The president should have been standing, where he could have released his energy and used his full posture and natural confidence to maximum effect. (See David Meerman Scott’s blog – great idea, David!)
The problems with the gestures in this speech were caused by the President’s sitting position and the camera, which framed the President with his hands showing above the desk. What he did was keep his gestures small, describing little circles with his hands and then putting them back down on the desk. So while his voice was telling us about commitments to stay as long as necessary and put the Gulf and everyone’s lives back together, his hands were saying, “little effort, no big deal, won’t last long.”
For once President Obama’s body language seriously undermined his speech. And he’s still using the ‘remote control’ gesture that I’ve talked about before. This gesture is weak and conveys nothing to the audience and he should forbid it from his gestural vocabulary.
We have a cool, competent President trying to cope with a chaotic situation. In moments of high drama, we want our Commander in Chief to match the moment with some passion. This Oval Office speech was not enough. Is it the President’s job to clean up this mess that BP has made? Obviously not, but if he’s going to take charge of the oversight of the recovery, then he has to take charge in a convincing way.
I was wondering what you thought of the speech. Glad you agreed with my assessment. I agree with your other points. David
Nick – you have a keen eye for nuance. Now that you say it, his points of emotional inflection and gesture betray what he really thought. I also hadn’t thought of how his presidential demeanor has departed from his candidate demeanor. Bravo.
Nick – nice analysis. In addition to the gesture issues, I’d say there was a content problem too. We expect Big News from the Oval Office – and not much new in the speech. And we expect Serious Calls To Action, but it was light on that as well. John Dickerson and Daniel Gross have companion pieces on Slate which do a good job calling out those content issues, I think: http://www.slate.com/id/2257150/
Good analysis, Nick. My first thought was that his handlers overplayed the significance of the Oval Office and that he would have been much more effective standing. He would have been able to use his body language more effectively and the last thing you want to do when people think you’ve “sitting down” regarding the response is sit down while giving a speech about the response.
Thanks to David, Shawn, Jeff and Eric for the great comments. I’ve now asked two audiences on a non-scientific basis about the speech and was interested to see a nearly-universal feeling that it wasn’t a great speech — both from Obama supporters and non-supporters. Presidents (leaders) need to call their people to greatness, and this speech seems like a missed opportunity.