Persuasive Speeches

“…all men are persuaded by consideration of their interests…”
—Aristotle, Rhetoric

Persuasion is really what rhetoric is all about and there’s no better place to start talking about persuasion than with Aristotle. In his treatise Rhetoric, he identified three modes of persuasion ethos, logos, and pathos. The first is the ethical appeal—is the speaker credible? The second is the appeal to the reason—does the speech provide sufficient proof to make you believe what the speaker is claiming or proposing? The third is the appeal to the audience’s emotions—are the listeners in the right frame of mind (best disposition) to do, think, and feel what the speaker is proposing?

Three modes of persuasion

Ethos

What makes a person credible? According to Aristotle:

Competence
Good moral character
Good will toward listeners

Competence—demonstrated through:

Establishing credentials (e.g., through another’s introduction of you)
Reinforcing your knowledge/expertise by citing personal experience
Citing or aligning yourself with acknowledged experts/ past successes
Getting third party testimonials/references
Raising tough questions and answering them
Mastering the material—being able to boil information down to the essentials

Good moral character—How can you get them to trust you?

Being honest—in what you present and how you present it
Being open to—not ducking—criticism and questions
Being candid—acknowledging weaknesses in your argument and/or strong points in the opponent’s case
Having no hidden agenda
Attacking the ideas not the person expressing them
Not exerting undue pressure (tight deadlines or abusing rank/position)
Arguing on the merits, not politics or expediency
Giving an accurate picture of the facts and data—not quoting out of context or incompletely
Being open about the consequences
Admitting the gray areas
Acknowledging what you don’t know
Being realistic in expectations

Good will toward the audience—How do you show your respect?

Extending your hand/reaching out to the audience even before the presentation if possible
Sincerely flattering them
Being confident, but not arrogant (your attitude has a lot to do with their response)
Acknowledging and taking into consideration their experience, knowledge, intelligence, position, opinion, feelings, etc.
Respecting their time and being on time
Being culturally sensitive
Being flexible
Seeing things from their perspective
Finding common ground
Paying attention to their body language—listening, observing, and responding to what they’re “saying” to you
Encouraging their questions
Doing your homework—coming in prepared and speaking in terms they can understand
Giving them some choices or options on how to do what you’re proposing

Logos

How do you overcome this audience’s resistance and get them to do what you want?

Providing relevant facts/data
Backing up what you say with specifics (examples)
Using sound reasoning, reasoning appropriate to the audience and subject
Providing demonstrations/visualizations
Acknowledging there are opposing views/alternatives/counterarguments and addressing/refuting them
Couching your support in the terms and the form the audience will most likely respond to (e.g., data for the engineers and scientists, big pictures and visions for the visionaries, numbers for the financial types, facts for the fact-lovers, etc.)

Pathos

Feelings play a major role in one’s decision-making. What’s the frame of mind that will help you get your listeners to do what you want? Do you need to appeal to their anger, fear, pity, shame, competitiveness, pride, loyalty, patriotism, self-esteem, generosity, faith, or something else? Be aware that:

Emotions must be appropriate or consistent with the subject matter, situation, audience, etc.
Aren’t a substitute for proof
Emotions can backfire and affect a speaker’s credibility if they aren’t genuine or if they are “over the top”

Addendum

A speaker has to believe in what she is proposing and demonstrate that belief…visually as well as verbally.

The speaker’s emotion (passion/conviction) wasn’t talked about specifically by Aristotle, but it was implied and is essential to success. A speaker has to believe in what she is proposing and demonstrate that belief/conviction—convey that conviction to the audience—visually as well as verbally. For example, Richard Nixon’s passionate self-defense and Barbara Jordan’s impassioned statement at the House (of Representatives) Judiciary Committee hearings discussing Nixon’s possible impeachment.

Summary

Persuasion is a complex process. Keeping Aristotle’s essentials in mind can help:

Be credible
Offer proof and refute major counterargument(s)
Appeal to the audience’s emotions, beliefs, and values, and find common ground
Convey your conviction. It can be contagious

There are probably many great persuasive speeches, but I find these three to have been very effective:

Nixon’s Checker’s Speech: Mr. Nixon’s Master Defense (1952)

I have mixed feelings when it comes to this speech. On the one hand, I think it is probably one of the most effective persuasive speeches I’ve ever seen. On the other, he does some things that I think would hurt his credibility if he was trying to convert opponents to his way of thinking or if he gave the speech today.

Nixon’s nationally-televised speech is probably his most famous speech. He clearly had an important audience—the leaders of his political party who wanted to drop him as the vice-presidential candidate. But they were not the ones he was speaking to directly. He was addressing the general public and wanted to convince them of his innocence and motivate them to contact the party leaders on his behalf. He succeeded in making a very strong argument to support his claim of doing nothing illegal, successfully refuted the counterarguments and doubts that people had, made a brilliant emotional appeal, and got broad public support. The public’s huge positive response (e.g., telegrams and telephone calls to the Republican national headquarters) convinced the party leadership that it was necessary to keep him on the ticket.

Where I think he hurt his credibility was by using emotionally-loaded words, making sweeping generalizations, playing on the fears of his audience, and implying that his opponents are guilty of something without any proof of wrongdoing on their part.

(NOTE: Admittedly, it is difficult to divorce Nixon’s 1952 speech and its defense of his integrity from his subsequent political downfall. He was twice elected President of the United States, but resigned the office in disgrace in 1974 rather than be impeached for covering up the break-in of the Democratic National Headquarters during the 1972 campaign. Also, since the speech is so old, produced in black and white, and obviously staged and stiff, it is also hard to look at it through the eyes of an early 1950s TV viewer. But he was breaking new ground—using television to defend himself—so the viewers had nothing to compare him against. No politician had ever used television like this. No television audience had ever been bigger. And viewers certainly weren’t in a position to critique the production qualities. Everything on TV at the time looked like this.

Try to put aside your 21st-century eyes and awareness and see this speech for the brilliant performance that it was. Before a jury the size of the United States, Richard Nixon masterfully defended his actions and persuaded the public that he deserved to be the vice-presidential candidate. He made a very strong rational argument, refuted the most likely counterarguments, went a long way to rebuilding his credibility among a large group of Americans, and made a very strong emotional appeal and connection with that part of the population that he would later call “the Silent Majority”.)

Like any good lawyer, he reframes the issue in terms favorable to his case.

Nixon makes a strong rational case in several ways. First, like any good lawyer, he reframes the issue in terms favorable to his case. He says that his offense would be morally wrong if it met certain criteria. He then proceeded to show his audience that what he did met none of these criteria. Next, in a very matter-of-fact way, he educates the listeners as to what it costs to run a senator’s office and how those costs are handled. He then takes the audience through the types of expenses not covered by the government and the various available options to pay for them. He basically leads the audience to the one option open to him: the one that he took.

But he doesn’t stop there. Knowing that his credibility is the issue, he relies on an independent audit by a reputable accounting firm and the opinion of an independent law firm to confirm his position. Note how he emphasizes the word “independent.” He uses it four times. To reinforce his credibility, he quotes the conclusion from that opinion.

But, anticipating that some may still doubt him, he sets out to “prove” that he is telling the truth by laying out in great detail his finances—“everything he’s taken in, everything he’s spent, and everything he owes”. Based on this exhaustive accounting of his financial condition, a reasonable person couldn’t help but come to Nixon’s conclusion that he has not benefited from the funds supplied by his supporters.

The real brilliance of this speech is Nixon’s emotional appeal which enabled him to find common ground with his audience…he wrapped himself in the myth of the American Dream.

But the real brilliance of this speech is Nixon’s emotional appeal which enabled him to find common ground with his audience. This speech resonated so strongly with them because he wrapped himself in the myth of the American Dream. He was the little man who had made it to the top—despite the many obstacles in his path and the people who opposed him. How could ordinary Americans not sympathize and identify with him? He is one of them (i.e., fought in the war, had a wife, two kids, house and mortgage, an Oldsmobile, and a dog). Plus, Americans love the underdog as much as they resent the rich and the powerful who seemingly want to hold them back.

Again and again, Nixon talks about his modest means and contrasts himself with the members of the other party. This comes out with his mention of his wife’s cloth coat (versus mink), in the detailed accounting of his financial condition, in quoting the Chairman of the Democratic Party who supposedly said that only a rich man can serve his government in Congress, and the fact that Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate for President, in Nixon’s words, “inherited a fortune.”

Nixon framed the issue in emotional terms right at the outset of the speech when he said he was going to do something different than what most politicians would do; namely, he was going to address the issue directly and tell the truth. Then, like the smart defense attorney in the courtroom he proceeds to ask and answer the questions that he feels his national audience—his jury—has on its mind, but couldn’t ask because he was not in the same room with them.

It’s these questions that form the structure for his argument:

Nixon’s Questions

Was that wrong? The question is was it morally wrong?
Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?
And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions:
- Do you think when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech, and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers?
- Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech that the cost of the trip should be charged to the taxpayers?
- Do you think when a Senator makes political broadcasts, or political television broadcasts, radio or television that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers?
Well, how do you pay for these and how can you do it legally?
What are other ways that these finances can be taken care of?
Well, that’s all right, Senator, that’s your explanation, but have you got any proof?
Well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake this thing. How can we believe what you say? After all, is there a possibility that you may have feathered your own nest?
Now, what have I earned since I went into politics?
Now that was what we took in. What did we do with this money?
Now that’s what we have. What do we owe?
Do you know what it was?
Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the smears, the misunderstanding, the necessity for a man to come up here and bare his soul as I have—why is it necessary to continue this fight?
Why do I think it is in danger?
Implied question: And now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay on the Republican ticket or resign.

But it should be pointed out that in addition to relying on Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos, the crafty Nixon also uses some tricks to gain his victory. Tricks that most lawyers use to defend their clients by drawing the audience’s (or jury’s) attention away from the facts of the case. Or by prejudicing them in their client’s favor by selective use of facts and suggestive language.

The first rhetorical “trick” that Nixon used is the “red herring” he throws in about his wife not being on the payroll. This is a non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with the accusations against him—about the money supporters gave him that he supposedly used illegally. A red herring is a diversionary tactic used by the speaker to change the subject. Get the attention off of the offender and the offense and on to something (or someone else). In this case, Nixon, the lawyer, not only tells the listeners that he hasn’t taken advantage of the system, but that his opponent has. It’s all part of his strategy of turning his defense of himself into an attack on the opposing party’s candidates.

Which gets us to another of the diversionary tactics that Nixon uses. In this case, the argument ad hominem (Latin meaning “to the man”). This is a form of emotional argument that switches the speech from a discussion of issues to a discussion of personalities. While the reason for the televised speech is to defend himself against charges of misuse of funds, it soon shifts from a defense of Nixon to an attack on his opponents. He insinuates that they must have something to hide if they don’t come forth, as he did, and give a complete account of their financial condition.

At times, Nixon sounds like Marc Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, repeatedly claiming that Brutus is an honorable man while at the same time getting the crowd of Caesar’s supporters riled up enough to attack him and his fellow conspirators.

The last questionable tactic that Nixon employs is to exploit the audience’s fears and prejudices to prevent them from focusing squarely on the issue. The primary fear that Nixon is playing off of is the fear of Communism. In the 1950s, Communism was about as frightening to Americans as terrorism is today. Nixon positioned himself and was nationally known as an ardent anti-Communist. In fact, it’s probably why he was on the ticket in the first place. And he does all that he can to paint his opponents and the Democratic administration that was in power as pro-Communist. He refers to Communism or Communist ten times in his twenty-nine minute speech.

Appeals to the emotions are not only legitimate, but necessary if you want to move people to take a particular action, change their way of thinking, etc.

But when the appeals are intended to cloud the issue or to color someone’s thinking rather than inform or enlighten them, then they’ve moved beyond the legitimate to the illegitimate and that’s what Mr. Nixon did in his plea to be kept on the Republican ticket.

Exaggerations, generalizations, false modesty, attacks on the person, and plays on irrational fears hurt the speaker’s ethical appeal—at least among those who can discern them. These things probably didn’t hurt Nixon because he was the first to use a televised speech to defend himself. After being exposed to so many political “mea culpa” speeches over the years, we hear this speech much differently today. And he was speaking to his party’s base in language they could understand and taking stands that they support.

John F. Kennedy’s Houston Minister’s Speech (1960)

Just eight years after Nixon’s successful speech, he is running for President of the United States against Senator John F. Kennedy. Like Nixon, Kennedy is forced to fight for his political life early in his presidential campaign. Because he’s a Catholic and no Catholic had ever been elected president before, he is facing some fairly stiff opposition from the leaders of several Protestant denominations.

To address the issue head-on, Kennedy agrees to speak to the Houston Ministerial Association. His advisor and speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, states that JFK’s objective with the speech was “to state his position so clearly and comprehensively that no reasonable man could doubt his adherence to the Constitution.” Sorensen would later call this speech one of the three most important Kennedy speeches.

Kennedy’s speech is quite a bit different than Nixon’s. Nixon is the lawyer arguing his client’s case before a jury—the television audience. Kennedy is stating his beliefs—his credo—which befits a discussion of religion with an audience full of ministers. They are strikingly different in tone and well as substance. Nixon is intense, emotional, at times even combative. Kennedy is restrained, dignified, respectful. (But he could also be assertive as he was when he answered some of their nastier questions in the Q&A after the speech.)

And the speeches are much different in length. Kennedy’s is short, lean. There’s a single message to communicate; i.e., that the candidate is loyal to the Constitution, not the Pope, and he does nothing that’s going to interfere with the communication of that message. It’s also short because it’s being delivered to a live, adversarial audience who will want time to ask their questions after the speech. Nixon, on the other hand, is talking to a television camera and has more than one objective. While ostensibly defending himself about the “secret fund”, he also sees the speech as an opportunity to make an attack on the other party’s candidates, promote the Republican presidential candidate, and make a strong case for his anti-Communism credentials.

Kennedy’s credibility comes across in his superb command of the facts—not just about his religion and his personal beliefs, but also about the issues that he knows are on the minds of his listeners. He anticipates the questions he’ll be getting in the Q&A and addresses them in his speech. By doing so, he no doubt helps “inoculate” himself against the full impact of the verbal attacks that will follow the speech. But he also shows them that he’s acutely aware of what concerns them.

His grace under pressure in addressing the audience and his acknowledgment of common ground between him and them no doubt also contribute to his credibility.

His is not an apology for Catholicism, but a statement of one man’s beliefs and a repeated assurance that his religious beliefs won’t interfere with his ability to execute his duties as President of the United States. His allegiance is not to the Vatican, but to the Constitution and the American people. His credibility is enhanced by his willingness to resign the office if there was a conflict between his conscience and the national interest. That credibility is reinforced by the respect that he shows this audience even when they get nasty in their questions and disrespectful in their tone.

Kennedy’s appeal to the reason—especially important on such a sensitive subject as religion—is based largely on his lengthy time in the Congress and the voting record he has recorded on sensitive issues—those where religion might be a factor and where his votes attest to his independence from his religion’s official position. (Ironically, if Kennedy were running today, he’d probably have no problem getting Protestants to vote for him. His big nemesis would be a more conservative Catholic church telling its members not to vote for him or publicly refusing to allow its clergy to give him Communion because of his stances.) He ends the speech by reciting the oath he would take if elected—“practically identical…with the oath of office I have taken for 14 years in the Congress.”

While not nearly as emotional as Nixon in his speech, Kennedy does try to appeal to his audience’s emotion. He reminds them of his loyalty to the country by referring to his and his brother’s military service: “…this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and my brother died for in Europe.” He goes on to talk about fighting for religious freedom and ends with a reference to Texas’s most revered shrine, the Alamo, “…but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.” But the biggest thing he does is to play on their concern for religious tolerance and their sense of fairness by stating that America would be the loser if “40 million Americans lost their chance at being President on the day they were baptized.” Do they, Christian ministers of God, want to be seen as biased?

He finds common ground with them when he talks about religious persecution and how it could affect any group. And states unequivocally that he is against it, regardless of religion or wherever it might occur.

Kennedy is not trying to convince his audience to like Catholics or the Catholic Church, but rather to be fair. He’s looking for a level playing field—an election based on the issues, not on religious prejudices. He’s asking for reciprocity. He won’t let the Pope or his church tell him what to do in office; the leaders of the Protestant churches shouldn’t tell them for whom to vote. And he’s trying to convince them of his belief in the separation of church and state and does his best to show them that this separation is advantageous to both him and them and consistent with the Constitution. Finally, he’s out to demonstrate his character and integrity. He’s willing to come before them and discuss his beliefs and hear their concerns. He’s not going apologize for being a Catholic or change his beliefs to please them.

While I think the speech does a very good job of separating the man’s religion from his capacity to hold his country’s highest office, it’s Kennedy’s performance in the lengthy Q&A session which followed the speech that won him the most points with this tough audience. As he says jokingly at the end, he knows he hasn’t made any converts, but in a sense he has. Many in that audience have gone from being aggressive attackers to polite listeners. Sometimes, that’s the best you can hope for when dealing with a difficult crowd and talking about a very heated subject like religion.

The link to the entire program including the introductions to the evening and the speaker and the Q&A portion of the speech can be seen here.

Kennedy’s way of answering the ministers’ questions is a model of respectful listening, real answers, and patience.

Rather than automatically firing back pre-packaged political messages (as most politicians do today when asked tough questions), Kennedy gives each questioner the courtesy of a specific, often detailed answer—one that provides support for the claims he’s making. Despite the fact that many of the questions seem to have been already answered in the speech, the candidate patiently takes them through his stance again. But he’s also true to himself and his beliefs and refuses to compromise them even with the tough questions. Watch what happens to the audience in the course of the Q&A. Adversaries at the outset, most of them seem to have been impressed with the candidate by the end of the evening. They still might not vote for him, but they’ve been won over by his courage, his wit, and his integrity.

Representative Barbara Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee Statement (1974)

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was still in her first term in Congress when she made this powerful speech before fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee.

If Nixon was the masterful defense lawyer in his Checker’s speech, Barbara Jordan was the brilliant prosecutor laying out the case for his impeachment.

(Ironic, isn’t it? Nixon’s persuasive speech enabled him to be elected Vice-President and that visibility and experience ultimately got him the Presidency. And then it’s another outstanding persuasive speech that helped get him out of that office when he abused it.)

Right from the start, Jordan lays out what’s at stake: the Constitution itself. And she makes it very clear just how committed she is to its preservation by very candidly acknowledging that as an African-American she only became a citizen because the flexibility of this remarkable document eventually allowed it.

But she’s not only passionate about its preservation but demonstrates her credibility to talk about it by her enormous store of Constitutional knowledge. She not only quotes the provisions of the document itself but the words of the framers who wrote it and ratified it. She knows and can speak to not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of it and the intentions behind it.

But the strength of the speech is the rational appeal she makes to this committee consisting entirely of lawyers. She quotes the impeachment provisions of the Constitution and the framers’ words describing this extraordinary measure and then aligns Nixon’s offenses against these criteria. After hearing her argument, she makes it very hard for anyone who is sworn to protect the Constitution—as these congressmen are—not to agree that what he has done warrants impeachment. As she says so eloquently in her final words, “It is reason and not passion that must guide our deliberation, guide our debate, and guide our decision.”

Despite her plea for reason, there is an emotional appeal in the speech. And that is to the conscience of each member of the committee. She finds the common ground. They have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution. How can they vote along party lines after hearing such a persuasive argument?

(NOTE: The link to the speech includes some very good background information about the Nixon administration, the Watergate break-in, and the committee’s lengthy investigation that preceded Ms. Jordan’s speech.)