A generation ago it was easy: public figures didn’t cry in front of the cameras, or in any sort of public setting. When Ed Muskie cried on the 1972 campaign trail, his candidacy more or less collapsed afterward. He was widely deemed too emotional to be president. Fast forward to 2008, and candidate Hilary Clinton’s near-crying moment in January in New Hampshire. That episode was said by some to be a calculated effort to make her appear more human, whereas others said it was a genuine moment that made her appear more human. Finally, in the present day, we have the new Speaker of the House – in the line of succession – blubbering at every opportunity whenever free enterprise is mentioned.
What’s the right emotional tenor for a leader to strike? Why do we make such a fuss about tears and other emotional outbursts? What does an emotional outburst say about the public figure in question? The following are a few rules for emotional behavior in public.
(1) What’s appropriate changes constantly; part of the test of a modern public figure is how well he or she ‘reads’ the situation. The reason the public reacted so strongly to Muskie’s possible tears was that they were out of the normal range of behavior for politicians of the day. The issue is not really one of emotion per se, but how well the public figure reads the situation and reacts. It’s a test, in this sense, of emotional intelligence. If you push the envelope too far, you’ll get a strong public reaction, either good or bad – or more likely both at once.
(2) Emotional outbursts are ‘hot’ TV; they will get covered. There’s no hiding if the cameras are rolling at the same time as the tears. TV is a cool medium, and it craves ‘hot’ emotions. In other words, we love to watch people get angry, sad, happy, or whatever. As long as it’s emotional and extreme it will play well on TV and get lots of coverage.
(3) When the emotion runs counter to the dominant story about you, it will make news. Hilary’s slight choking up on the campaign trail was big news because the dominant story about her was that she was a controlled, unemotional campaigner. There was a gender-based narrative about her as well: was she being ‘tough’ in order to put questions to rest about her ability to dominate on the world stage because she is a woman? The tears might have been calculated, or they might have been real, but either way they were news because of the perception of Hilary’s character. Did the tears support or undercut the narrative? That was the argument.
(4) An established public figure can push the boundaries of currently acceptable behavior. John Boehner’s teary speeches have become commonplace; he has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable in a public emotional outburst. After a little ridicule and a few stories, the press will move on to other things, because it absorbs this story into the main Boehner narrative. The main story on Boehner is that he is a cigarette-smoking, golf-playing, orange-faced member of the classic (male) Republican country club set. Tears therefore are a surprise, but they don’t really interrupt the basic flow of the Boehner saga. In other words, because Boehner is already well-known on the national stage, and his story well-established, that his crying jags only add a plot point; they don’t really undercut the main story.
(5) Even as the emotional boundaries change, what stays the same is the importance of tact. We expect some emotional intelligence from our leaders, and some strength. Thus restrained emotions will always play better than full-bore outbursts. Boehner is ridiculed not because he cries, but because he cries in big, slobbery gasps of tears. The issue is that emotions are charismatic; we pay attention to, and ultimately respect leaders who show anger, compassion, excitement, and the rest of the range of human emotions at the appropriate moment and at the appropriate pitch. The world has become far more accepting of public emotions in general, but we still expect our leaders to be tactful about them.
What are your favorite public emotional moments? What, in your view, are the current rules of the road? If President Obama cried, for example, would that – and should that – make news?
To me, the rules have always been about what the speaker evokes from the audience. I used to have a boss that, after listening to one of his passionate talks, made me feel like I could run through a wall – he made ME feel invincible. He did it by be juuuust emotional enough to get the emotion out of me. He never crossed the line.
When I see John Boehner cry on TV, he doesn’t look passionate. He looks like a blubbering fool. For Obama, crying wouldn’t work, but a genuine human emotion of anger or excitement would. The guy’s a robot.
I really don’t think you need to overstep your ability to generate emotion by being emotional yourself.
Hi, Paul — thanks for the good comment. You make an important point, which is really that in order to evoke a response in your audience — as your boss did — you have to have a real, authentic passion yourself. It should both be real for you AND tactful under the circumstances. That’s why Boehner’s crying doesn’t work. I do believe that it’s real and authentic for him, but it is not tactful — it shows a lack of emotional intelligence — for the audience and setting.
Nick,
Brilliant post! As presenters, assessing the impact of our actions/content on our audience should be a key filter through which we put everything.
A certain amount of emotion conveys authenticity, sincerity, humanity. More than a certain amount creates discomfort for the listener and suggests lack of control and potentially inauthenticity. It is indeed emotional intelligence that helps determine what’s enough and what’s too much.
I agree with the previous commenter — for all of President Obama’s rhetorical skills, he would be well advised to incorporate a bit more emotion into some of his comments. It would not be believable for him to break down in sobs, but more warmth in his voice and a less robotic cadence would help differentiate how he feels about (for example) the recent shooting of Gabby Giffords versus the latest employment numbers. And I love your description of John Boehner.
Best,
Kathy
Hi, Kathy, and thanks for the good comment. You remind me of Phil from Stark County Texas, who was running for Treasurer or something last year and went berserk during his nomination speech. I blogged on it, and it was an Internet phenomenon. A perfect example of what you’re talking about – the lack of control implied by too much emoting.
And yes, I completely agree with you about President Obama. If only he could have a catch in his voice, or a slight hesitation, to show some (even held back) emotion, he would connect much better with the American people.
I think the speaker can help the audience relax around their tears. The speaker might say “I’m ok, I’m crying because this really matters to me – I’m passionate about this subject” and maybe go on tell the story about why they are passionate. Another example might be “This is my dad’s last journey today, I might cry but we all know that is part of saying goodbye”
I once had a client who worked with head-injured children and she said “I cry everytime I speak publicly about them” . When I saw her speak just about all the audience had tears in their eyes when she spoke – tears of support and recognition of the children’s bravery. Real emotion in a speaker who can be present with it and present with the audience is powerful and part of being human.
Great point, John — we call that ‘inoculating the audience’ and it’s a great idea whenever you want to push the boundaries a little. Thanks for weighing in.
Good post… I agree with Paul “you need to overstep your ability to generate emotion by being emotional yourself.”