Analyzing Sarah Palin’s Resignation Speech
What are we to think of Palin’s speech on Friday?
She announced she would not be seeking reelection as governor of Alaska in 2010. And then she announced that she was resigning in three weeks. (Read the text of her speech here.)
There are any number of ways of analyzing a speech. My three favorites (not in order of importance) are 1) delivery, 2) message, and 3) results.
1) Delivery
Delivery isn’t just a technique, a way of using your body and voice. It’s about projecting both your message (your ideas and your intentions) and your self (your character, personality, values, etc) as clearly, powerfully, and authentically as possible.
Diane DiResta is primarily addressing delivery when writes in a post “What Sarah Palin Can Teach Politicians”:
She didn’t read a teleprompter. She didn’t have a script. What she did do was speak from her heart. Whether you love her or hate her, the woman knows how to connect with an audience. She began by talking about her love for the people and state of Alaska. Her passion was genuine. She sustained eye contact as she spoke of both her accomplishments and challenges. Her language was straightforward and her message was clear as she shared her proud moments and her pain. There was no hesitation-just conviction. While some believe her premature resignation is career suicide, few doubt her ability to draw future crowds with her speaking ability. People find her candor and direct, folksy style a refreshing contrast to overly packaged politicians.
I think Diane is right when she comments on Palin’s ability to be herself and to connect with her audience. But I’d add a conditional phrase — as long as the audience likes her and shares her views.
I suspect that Palin will remain a polarizing figure. She is who she is. And you either like / love her or laugh at / belittle her. I don’t know what she could do to appeal to a wider audience and still be true to herself and what she believes.
2) Message
Most people who comment primarily on her message scratch their heads and say, “huh?” They generally describe her speech as incoherent.
I’ll confess that I have a hard time tracking her speech. What was her main point? Did she have a main point? What were her supporting, sub-points? Did she explain her ideas clearly? Did she offer evidence that substantiated her points? How did one point lead logically to another?
If coherent means marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts, I’d have to say her speech wasn’t coherent and was, therefore, incoherent.
But — stay with me here — incoherence isn’t always a bad thing. Or at least coherence isn’t always a good thing. A speech is more than a logically developed argument. It can be a medley: 1. a mixture, esp. of heterogeneous elements; 2. a piece of music combining tunes or passages from various sources.
A medley of, say, Broadway love songs or the Beatle’s hit tunes can be very appealing if you like the original tunes or passages.
I think Palin’s speech was a medley of her favorite themes, among which are: 1) small government is good; 2) the media is controlled by liberal elites; 3) “politics as usual” is a dirty word; 4) family, faith, and patriotism are good things. The themes aren’t particularly well integrated, but they hold together in their own way. If you like the themes — and how she plays/defines them — you probably liked her speech.
(I’m not, by the way, being patronizing when I call her speech a medley. I classify many motivational or inspiration speeches in the same way.)
3) Results
If you’ve been reading my blog (or if you’ve read my book), you know I’m a results-oriented person. I think a speech is effective (not necessarily good, but effective) if it achieves its goal.
By that standard I can’t judge Palin’s speech a success, because I have no idea what her goal was.
What did she want to accomplish?
- Did she want people to pay attention to her and to discuss her speech, her motives, and her plans for the future? If so, she succeeded. (She even managed for one brief shining moment to draw the media’s attention away from all things Michael Jackson.)
- Did she want to position herself as a Presidential candidate? I don’t know how her speech — this particular speech — would advance that objective. But I’ll leave that discussion to the political commentators.
- Did she want to explain why she was resigning? That seems to have been her stated reason. But if so, she failed. No one knows for sure why she’s resigning at this time, which is one of the reasons so many people are speculating about her “real” reasons for resigning.
What do you think about her speech? Keep in mind that this isn’t a political blog, so please keep your comments focused as much as possible on her speech and how you evaluate it.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Wow. Thank you for your analysis of her speech, which included the manner in which it was delivered. Plenty of the 24/7 cable channels and others (local/national news networks and blogs) have performed an autopsy {or celebration} for the underlying politcs-virtually none have evaluated her performance at the Friday afternoon press conference as a speech.
Upon further reflection, I felt as if I was watching an encore of Govenor Mark Sanford’s statements after returning from Argentina, or his subsequent interview with AP (except she seemed earnest, authentic, AND largely incoherent.)
Interestingly enough, Sarah Palin subsequently granted a one-on-one access with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. There were obvious edits in the videotape, so it’s impossible to say whether what was left on the cutting room floor would have altered anyone’s perception of the about-to-be former Governor.
With the entire world seemingly mourning the passing of MJ, Andrea ended her report with a touch of ‘levity’ by noting she could almost see Russia from the fishing village where the interview was conducted.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
The #1 principal in storytelling like this is “”Don’t bury the lead.” Resigning from a governorship is a big, big deal. The #1 question people ask is, “Why?” Palin did worse than bury the lead — she got rid of it entirely. If her goal was to create a firestorm of speculation about why she was REALLY quitting, she succeeded. Scandal? Job offer from Rupert Murdoch? 2012 presidential run? Mad affair with Mark Sanford? We STILL don’t know.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sean — When analyzing political speeches, I think a touch of levity helps. I think Sanford’s advisors — if not Sanford himself — may be happy to have some of the media attention turned from him to some else’s odd behavior.
drprocter — You’re right. She didn’t get around to actually announcing her resignation until half way through a 19-minute speech. The more she speaks — if she continues to give speeches like this one — the more she will disappoint even her fans. I’m fascinated by how much attention and (from some quarters at least) favorable attention is given to a speech that goes wrong in so many ways. And I wonder if she is coachable.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
[...] Witt analyzes Sarah Palin’s resignation speech. There are any number of ways of analyzing a speech. My [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 2:41 am
eventhough there are lots of criticisms against Sarah Palin, i still admire her. she also did a lot of things in the area of politics specially in Alaska.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
detoxdiet: Many people find Palin likeable and even admirable. That’s why, I think, they’re slow to critize a speech such as this one. To my thinking, she squandered a chance to say something substantial and to win more people to her camp by being so unfocused.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 am
I admire Sarah Palin because she had also done a lot in the area of Politics specially in Alaska where she was a governor.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:29 am
i admire Sarah Palin because she had done a lot in the area of politics. she has also a good track record when she was still the governor of Alaska.
October 10th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
actually i like Sarah Palin very much. she is a very good role model for all women. i believe that she is a great politician and did something very well in Alaska.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Sarah Palin is a good leader. i can say that because she did some projects in alaska that helped lots of people .
December 27th, 2009 at 7:06 am
There are critics of Sarah Palin but in my opinion she is also a very good politician and she also did some good projects in Alaska.
`
April 26th, 2010 at 8:02 am
I idolize Sarah Palin because she is a woman with very strong character. She has also lots of accomplishments in the area of public service.`
May 6th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Sarah Palin is a very vocal person and most of the time she speaks what she thinks and how she feels. .*