Life After PowerPoint!

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?

1. 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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.