Talking the talk: Obama vs Brown

Posted by Nick Laitner at Thu, 05/06/2008 - 5:33am in

Compare this:

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been travelled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

With this:

I'll start by saying this has been a difficult few months for the Government. But most importantly for the country. I know that the economic situation - as a result of the global credit crunch and rising prices - is creating genuine, and understandable anxiety. So it is more important than ever that the direction of the Government is clear and decisive. First of all, building a lasting prosperity is my immediate priority. And let me tell you that I am determined to take all necessary measures to make sure that we guide Britain through this period of global turbulence.

The first quote, of course, comes from the opening lines of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in Minnesota late on Tuesday night. The second formed Gordon Brown’s opening remarks as he launched his draft legislative programme to Parliament earlier this month.

I do not wish (in this post, at least) to pass judgement on the respective merits of Barack Obama and Gordon Brown as orators, or compare the relative abilities of their speechwriters. Instead, I wanted to use the above examples to pose the following question: Why is the contrast between the rhetoric employed by American politicians, and their counterparts on this side of the pond, so great?

It doesn’t matter whether you think Obama’s speeches are inspirational and rousing, or overwrought and empty; or whether you think Gordon Brown’s style is dull but competent or cripplingly ineloquent. Although Obama and Brown may be extreme examples of the contrast, it is clear that there is a metaphorical ocean between the rhetoric employed by politicians in Washington and Westminster.

So why is this? Are the American people that much less cynical than their UK counterparts, naïve enough to be guided by rhetoric alone? Is it that America is a country of believers and churchgoers, used to allowing high ideals and sermonising far more of a hearing? Does the adversarial nature of the Commons bearpit lend itself towards a more prosaic, functional approach? Is it something to do with the respective psyches of the two nations - compare the genuine desire of Americans to create a ‘more perfect union’, with our unofficial motto of ‘mustn’t grumble’? Or have they just watched more West Wing than we have?

I suspect it is a mixture of all of the above - perhaps excluding the West Wing point (President Bartlet’s rousing words are as well known in No 10 as they are on Capitol Hill) - but that national character is key. It seems unlikely that the British electorate will get less sceptical about our politicians’ statements any time soon, and Obama’s barnstorming campaign shows that this sort of oratory certainly works with an American audience. And the UK’s fascination with all things Presidential suggests that the candidates’ speeches in the campaign for the White House will continue to confound, and perhaps inspire, the cynical British listener until Obama or John McCain bring “a new and better day to America” this November.

Tagged with: Gordon Brown, Barack Obama, speeches