On the Conversational Style of Ronald Reagan: "A-E=[less than]Gc" Revisited and Reassessed

During contemporaneous rhetorical criticism of his style in discourse, President Ronald Reagan was assessed in terms of his living up to the eloquence of John F. Kennedy‘s Inaugural Address. In those two Speaker & Gavel Essays, Reagan was found to be deficient and thus a ―less-than-great communicator.‖ After revisiting and reassessing those two essays, Reagan‘s essentially conversational mode of communication for television was found to embody rhetorical elements that indeed may have fostered eloquence sufficient to retain the sobriquet of ―great communicator.‖ Introduction In two Speaker & Gavel essays during the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan‘s style in discourse was the focus of contemporaneous rhetorical criticism. Therein, his attempts to achieve stylized syntax and lexicon were scrutinized (during his presidency) for adherence to classical desiderata conducing to eloquence, and exemplars of style against which Reagan‘s sentences were measured often were in John F. Kennedy‘s Inaugural Address. In the first of those two essays, canonical lore about style known to Roman rhetoricians as elocutio (abbreviated as ―E‖ for formulary assessment), was measured against Reagan‘s ―A‖ (representing the classical canon of actio with advice about effective delivery with voice and body). Hence, whereas Reagan‘s prowess with the latter was acknowledged, his deficiencies with the former led to his being deemed a less-than-great communicator—or ―<GC.‖ Then, when ―A—E = <GC‖ received a redivida essay, Reagan‘s style in discourse was judged ―impotent‖ (Carpenter, 1982-83; 1987). I Ronald Reagan retains the sobriquet, ―Great Communicator.‖ Reassessment of his style in discourse—or lack thereof—thus is warranted. Impetus for so doing now stems partly from Clarke‘s 2004 book, Ask not: The inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the speech that changed America, which asserts that this address ―is generally acknowledged to have been the greatest oration of any twentieth-century American politician‖ (p. 9). Kennedy‘s lasting impress now prompts this question: why would an able communicator—such as Reagan still is acknowledged to be—try to surpass or even match Kennedyesque eloquence? Plain spoken, ―give em hell‖ Harry Truman eschewed efforts to match the style of his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, and did not suffer politically by thus being deemed a second-rate stylist (at best). And George Herbert Walker Bush 1 Lawrence and Carpenter: On the Conversational Style of Ronald Reagan: "A-E=[less than]Gc" Published by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato, 2007 2 Speaker & Gavel 2007 Speaker and Gavel, Vol 44 (2007) www.dsr-tka.org/ never matched the polished delivery of his presidential predecessor so why even try (even if that ineptness was lampooned continually on Saturday Night Live)? Still another factor impels re-assessing the aptness of Kennedyesque style as a standard for Reagan. The Kennedy Inaugural is on a DVD accompanying Tofel‘s 2005 book, Sounding the trumpet: The making of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address. Rhetorical critics viewing that speech again likely would concur that Kennedy largely was oblivious of television cameras. Directness with his live audience is obvious; continual, staccato gestures pointing his right hand index finger or poking the lectern with it are intended to enhance effect and affect of his words for people facing him directly; and his emotional involvement with the live audience before him impelled (more toward his peroration) his almost strident delivery—regardless of how it might play for cameras and television screens favoring Marshall McLuhan‘s notion of ―cool‖ messages. Reagan differs. His true audiences virtually always are cameras. And his prowess with delivery for them was honed on Hollywood sound stages, often by a cinematographic technique called ―shot and reverse shot,‖ whereby ―continuity editing‖ of a scene between two actors has an ―establishing shot‖ showing both of them conversing and then ―shot and reverse shot‖ showing each of them in turn either speaking or listening and interacting with the other person. When retakes of a scene are necessary because one actor erred in delivering a line for desired effect, the second actor often left the sound stage; and the remaining actor then simply addressed the camera (Ingrid Bergman, for instance, did not have to be present if Humphrey Bogart‘s Casablanca lines had to be delivered again). Skilled actors speak well to cameras, and only a reminder is in order about Reagan‘s honed ―mastery of voice and body while speaking.‖ Conducive to his admirable performance (actio) were a particularly wellmodulated baritone voice capable of controlled variation between restrained forcefulness and an almost hushed whisper, sustained eye contact, welltimed gestures, physical poise, and a superb sense of when to pause for clarity, emphasis, and emotional affect. ... Add his well-timed, characteristic nod of the head with clenched teeth and pursed lips between some words, whereby an impression of determination was reinforced. In combination with physical poise that bespoke both unflappable stature and the coolness so suitable for television, Reagan‘s rhetoric of voice and body warranted acclaim for performance (actio) and the controlled flexibility and polished delivery of his lines (Carpenter & Lawrence, 2005). Great communicators need more than delivery, however. Effective content of their discourse is mandatory, even at the subtlest nuances of syntax and lexicon.