The reviews of President Obama's Tuesday night Oval Office address are in, and they are decidedly tepid - like the response to many of his presidential speeches. But in this case the response is often one of puzzlement. The President had a golden opportunity to hit a home run: the ritual solemnity of the Oval Office setting and the existence of a grave crisis. Yet the President's words did not soar. What was wrong?
Some of the President's critics express particular consternation because they know, as we all know, that he can rise to the occasion and give a memorable speech. Where has he gone - the galvanizing orator of the 2004 Democratic presidential convention; the inspirational campaigner of 2008?
He has disappeared into the White House.
These two questions arise. why didn't this speech work, and why can't Barack Obama inspire as he used to? And they have, I think, the same answer.
First of all, a campaign speech (including pre-campaign speeches like the 2004 keynote address) necessarily contains something a presidential address often lacks: a request from the speaker to the audience for something, some change in their behavior, even some sacrifice on behalf of what the candidate stands for: a vote at the very least, financial support, activism, perhaps a complex and difficult change of perspective (like the "no red states or blue states" line).
Some might argue that asking people for something is risky and should be avoided. Famously, President George W. Bush, at another moment of great crisis, 9/11, failed to ask Americans to make sacrifices for the greater good. We remember, all too well, and perhaps with a quiver of embarrassment, that all he asked of us was that we... go shopping. It is true that Bush's popularity remained high for months if not years thereafter; but when the terror in the wake of 9/11 began to fade, Americans had no words of shared sacrifice or inspiration from their president to hold on to, and as we all know, the Bush administration deconstructed in ignominy. I am not saying that Bush's failure to engage the populace in a collective sacrifice was the only reason for his decline, but I would suggest that the lack of imagination and belief in the American people that Bush's post-9/11 rhetoric demonstrated contributed to the beginning of his end.
A "crisis" speech by a head of state, to be effective immediately and for the future, must consist of three main parts.
First, it must lay out succinctly what the crisis is about and who is responsible. This the President did admirably; I would give this first part an A.
Secondly, it must describe, with full specificity, what he and his government intend to do to remedy the situation and make sure it will never happen again. Here the President faltered a bit: he did briefly discuss measures, penalties, and ultimate solutions, but he did not spell them out in detail - not enough to give his hearers a sense of how things would actually change. For Part II, Obama gets a B/B- from me.
And lastly it must invite hearers to take part in the solution as they are taking part in the disaster; to form a connection with the president and his government and take an active role in making permanent changes; to willingly undertake sacrifice to contribute to a better solution and so to become part of that solution.
In other crises, other presidents have known how to use that third step effectively, in speeches that we remember. At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy told Americans in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Winston Churchill offered his fellow citizens' "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." Both before and during World War II, FDR repeatedly demanded sacrifices: rationing, the draft, victory gardens, and more.
Unfortunately, modern presidents seem to worry that the people to whom such speeches are addressed will resent being asked to do anything for themselves or anyone else. But there is no evidence for this. Certainly those to whom the speeches of FDR, JFK, and Churchill were addressed did not resent the burdens placed upon them. On the contrary, they welcomed the chance to participate in solving the crisis and rose to the occasion.
It is a cliché, but a useful one, that the Chinese characters that spell "crisis" are, individually, those for "danger" and "opportunity." The danger in this crisis is obvious, and was well addressed in the Oval Office speech. But the President totally missed his opportunity to ask for, or even demand, sacrifice - specifically, that all of us immediately go into rehab for our oil addiction. Unless we do, all the rhetoric, all the fines, all the finger-pointing, all the regulations in the world will not resolve the problem. The President needed to use Tuesday night's opportunity to make that clear.
Candidate Obama knew that asking for something was inspirational to an audience. President Obama seems to have forgotten this. So I have to give the President an F on the missing last part of his speech.