Can British Prime Ministers still learn from Aristotle and rhetoric?

Can British Prime Ministers still learn from Aristotle and rhetoric? Aristotle is important to us as speakers because he is generally credited as developing the basics of rhetorical theory in his book, which is often translated into English as The Art of Rhetoric.

Britain now has a new Tory Prime Minister. As a note for anyone outside the U.K., Tory is the nickname for the Conservative Party. I don’t want to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, I’m specifically interested in the new Prime Minister’s speaking ability.

Total running time 5 mins 44secs.

After reviewing the transcript of David Cameron’s first speech as P.M. outside Number 10, it seems as though he has more of a grasp of rhetoric than his predecessor Gordon Brown. At around 2.09 Cameron says:

”I believe that is the right way to provide this country with the strong, the stable, the good and decent government that I think we need so badly.

This is a series of four clauses known as a Tetracolon climax. It is a useful way for you to build to the end of a train of thought as Cameron does in this particular example.

Another example is Winston Churchill’s “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”

Back on the Cameron example at 3.04 he says:

”One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes that’s about cleaning up expenses, yes that is about reforming parliament, and yes it is about making sure people are in control – and that the politicians are always their servant and never their masters”.

This is known as Anaphora which is “the repetition of a word or phrase at the start of successive clauses”. This repetition at the beginning of a sentence can you help to emphasize the clauses that are being spoken.

In Cameron’s particular example it seems as though he’s looking to place emphasis on specific ideas that either his party has spoken about in the run up to the General Election, or ideas that have been mentioned in the press. In a way, attaching his ideas to that being expressed by “the people”.

He uses Anaphora again at 4.30 when he says the lines:

“I want us to build an economy that rewards work. I want us to build a society with stronger families and stronger communities. And I want a political system that people can trust and look up to once again”.

Other examples of Anaphora can be found with Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech as in:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves…”

David Cameron even made use of the Tricolon. This is “a series of three parallel words, phrases, or clauses that increase in power”. This can be seen at 4.25 when he said:

“Above all it will be a government that is built on some clear values. Values of freedom, values of fairness, and values of responsibility“.

Technically, the verbs should all be the same length, but in this case they are not. So it should be defined as a tricolon crescens, which is where the words increase in length. But to me this seems like nit-picking.

My concern with the speech, and much of the Conservatives campaigning in the past, is that it had similar flavour to President Obama’s call for change during his campaign. It’s a cause for concern because if Cameron ever rips anything off directly from Obama and doesn’t cite his source, then he will lose credibility. This is something that happened to Vice-President Joe Biden during the Presidential campaign of 1988.

He lifted direct chunks from the then Labour Leader Neil Kinnock’s speech and never credited the source. While this was a long time ago, it still stands out as a high profile incident of plagiarism that politicians need to be careful of.

Cameron also gave us the lines at 3.50:

“One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities. One where we don’t ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give”.

It was  interesting that Cameron gave us a similar sentiment that JFK gave in his inaugural speech, when he said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. Similar ideas and sentiment, but not an issue of plagiarism.

Now compare that speech with the one by Gordon Brown when he assumed the role of Prime  Minister in 2007. During his speech he only gave us a brief example of rhetoric when he said:

“As I have travelled around the country and as I have listened and I have learned from the British people – and as Prime Minister I will continue to listen and learn from the British people – I have heard the need for change: change in our NHS; change in our schools; change with affordable housing; change to build trust in government; change to protect and extend the British way of life”.

As you can see, he went for five uses of the word change at the start of successive clauses. This feels a little too much given that the tetracolon is four.

It’s all about you

Neither Cameron nor Brown made particular use of the words “you”, “you’re” or “your”. This is important in speeches because it makes the centre of the speech the listener rather than the speaker. As audience members we all want to know, “what’s in it for me”. By using these words, it may have helped them connect more with the people in the audience.

There is also the potential use of the words “we”, “us” or “our” as Obama used quite frequently. This is another technique that can help with identification and helps to make everyone in the room feel part of the same group and in a way on the same level as the person speaking. Kind of like we’re all in this together and I cannot achieve this goal without your help.

The danger with using the word “we” is that not only can it be used in an inclusive way, but also in an exclusive, sometimes, patronizing way. Such as when a doctor might ask “how are we feeling today?” or even with the Royal “we”, which is derived from the “divine right of kings” way of thinking and the word “we” would often mean “God and I”.

Obviously, then, care has to be taken with how you use these words. But I feel that both Brown and Cameron can learn a lot from American orators of the past.

Over the years, rhetoric has been given a bad name mostly because it has been misused, or people didn’t really know how to use it. It seems to have become synonymous with spin and broken promises.

But political speakers and orators need to be able to effectively use rhetoric I feel. Not only because it’s been used successfully for over two thousand years, but because  it can inspire and persuade people to your message. We need to be able to believe that the people in charge are going to deliver on their promises that they make when they campaign.

One of the other benefits of using rhetoric is that it helps you to easily and succinctly get your ideas across and can potentially save you from being repetitive about certain ideas, but without building your ideas and message to a logical conclusion.

I don’t think David Cameron did too badly with this speech in 636 words. But it will be interesting to see if he can deliver on the ideas and vision that he has laid down. If he can’t it doesn’t mean that the rhetoric has failed. So I think that British Prime Ministers can definitely still learn from Aristotle and rhetoric.

Tagged with: Public Speaking Skills • Toastmasters

Filed under: Professional Speaking • Toastmasters

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!