Oregon Public Broadcasting

When was the last time a presidential candidate inspired you with his words?

Was it Barack Obama or John McCain? Or maybe you have to reach back further – perhaps to Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy.

Political rhetoric is the art of harnessing emotions through language with the goal of persuading an audience. In this special report, Austin Jenkins explores with voters what works and what doesn’t when it comes to political rhetoric.

The date was March 20th, 1912. The place: Carnegie Hall, New York. It was on this day Theodore Roosevelt gave his “Right of the People to Rule” speech. He later recorded a version of it. You can imagine him leaning into the microphone with that famous moustache and rimless Pince-nez eyeglasses.

Theodore Roosevelt: "I believe in right of the people to rule. I believe that the majority of the plain people of the United States will day in and day make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern."

In 1912, Roosevelt had broken from the Republican Party and was running as a candidate of the Bull Moose Party.

Flash forward almost a hundred years and Republican John McCain cites Teddy Roosevelt as his conservative model. This past May, McCain gave what he called his “Four Year Vision” speech to an audience in Columbus, Ohio. Like Roosevelt, his rhetoric had a populist tone.

John McCain: "If you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions. That we fight for ourselves and not for them. Americans are sick of it and they have every right to be (applause)."

Both McCain and Teddy Roosevelt try to connect with voters by siding with them. But their rhetorical styles are different.

Pedro Celis is a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft, an immigrant from Mexico and a McCain supporter. He finds both Roosevelt and McCain’s approaches in these speeches effective.

Pedro Celis: "One is appealing to the audience and the hopes of the audience and the other one is telling them this is wrong and appealing to their sense of outrage and both are valid ways that are used a lot to motivate people to support somebody because either that person thinks like I do or the people sees the same problems that I’m seeing."

But Obama supporter Chris Keff, a Seattle restaurant owner, says Roosevelt’s language resonated with her more than McCain’s.

Chris Keff: "He was making positive statements: I believe and they can. Whereas McCain, and I think it’s typical of speeches today, they were talking about everything that’s wrong and how sick people are of it."

Keff and Celis were part of a panel of voters we convened recently to listen to current and archival audio of presidential candidates.

We wanted to know -- when it comes to political rhetoric -- what works and what doesn’t? How has the language of candidates changed over the decades? What’s stayed the same?

Take, for instance, Barack Obama and Adlai Stevenson. Here’s Stevenson at the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

Adlai Stevenson: "The ordeal of the 20th century -- the bloodiest most turbulent era of the whole Christian age -- is far from over. Sacrifice, patience, understanding and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come."

Stevenson was the Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956. He lost to Dwight Eisenhower both times. That doesn’t surprise Susan Stahlfeld, an attorney and McCain supporter.

Susan Stahlfeld: "The one phrase in Stevenson’s that really caught my attention was talking about the long, patient struggle ahead, which I don’t think necessarily appeals to voters -- I mean not that far from World War II, we’d been through that long struggle and I’m not sure people were necessarily ready to take on another long struggle like that."

Earlier this year, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post asked in a column whether Obama is Stevenson or John F. Kennedy: upscale and detached or passionate and populist? Obama was clearly going for passionate populist when he announced his run for president in February of last year.

Barack Obama: "That is why I’m in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation. I want to win that next battle for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle for better schools and better jobs and better healthcare for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union and building a better America."

By way of comparison, here’s Kennedy giving his acceptance speech at the 1960 Democratic convention in Los Angeles.

John Kennedy: "The unemployed miners and textile workers know that the decision is before them in November, the old people without medical care, the families without a decent home, the parents of children without a decent school, they all know that it’s time for a change."

Both Kennedy and Obama use the same slogan. But their language here is different. Obama talks about what he will do as president while Kennedy focuses on what ails the nation.

Obama supporter Chris Keff says this is one instance when for her the negative is powerful.

Chris Keff: "What Kennedy did in that speech, which was genius, was to personalize the pain that the failed policies cause. I mean he lifted up the pain of the people who’ve lost their farm or didn’t have enough to eat or didn’t have good schools and couldn’t have a chance."

Sometimes rhetoric doesn’t meet the straight face test. Such was the case when voter Annie Ludlum heard a recording of Barry Goldwater giving his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention.

Barry Goldwater: "The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free, not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism not to cringe before the bullying of communism."

Ludlum, an actor and playwright who supports Obama, says sometimes soaring rhetoric soars too high.

Annie Ludlum: "It may not always work if they really seem to go over the top I mean if they make one giggle, which Goldwater’s made me giggle."

That triggered this rebuke from Republican Robert Wilkes. He said the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union justified Goldwater’s rhetoric.

Robert Wilkes: "What Goldwater was trying to do - and he gave a very good speech about this, I thought - was to rally our ideology against a threatening, competing ideology. And so in that context his speech makes more sense. I wouldn’t giggle at it Anne. I think it made sense."

That said, Wilkes prefers McCain’s style to Goldwater’s.

Robert Wilkes: "Today I find the Goldwater approach a little too pompous and a little too demagogic for my taste. I really like the more casual straight talk that McCain, that’s why I like McCain, I really believe him, he seems honest."

But even McCain admits oratory is not his strong suit. That makes comparing him to Ronald Reagan seem a bit unfair. But at times you can hear McCain trying to channel Reagan. Here he is speaking in Kenner, Louisiana in June.

John McCain: "America’s seen tough times before, we’ve always known how to get through them. And we’ve always believed that our best days are ahead of us (applause)."

Now, here’s Reagan at the 1980 Republican convention.

Ronald Reagan: "More than anything else I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American regardless of party affiliation who is a member of this community of shared values."

The voters on our panel say they like it when candidates use inclusive language like this.  But, political rhetoric doesn’t often transcend partisan lines. Republican voters tend to like to hear Republican candidates. Democratic voters like what fellow Democrats have to say.

One surprise: in an era when many think political discourse has devolved, the voters we talked to generally liked the more personal style of the modern candidates better than the formal statesman style of candidates of the past.