Why Do We Want an Eloquent President

Michael Kazin has an op-ed piece in The Washington Post today suggesting from historical evidence that Barack Obama's eloquence is indeed an important asset not only for the Obama candidacy, but also for an Obama presidency. He notes that presidents like Roosevelt and Reagan who were great speakers were able to use their ability to change the accepted wisdom of the American polity.

I feel he is right in his conclusion, but that it might be worth thinking through the idea a little more. Certainly, if I had to choose between a president who sounded good and didn't do good, and a president who didn't sound good but did good, I would choose the former. But Kazin is focusing on president's who faced great challenges, and who saw the country emerge successful from those challenges. (I think Obama will, assuming he is elected, face great challenges, and that the country will emerge from its current troubles in good shape.)

As the chief executive, it falls upon the president to head a huge team of political officials who together manage the bureaucracy to accomplish the program approved and budgeted by the Congress. There are thousands of people involved, not to mention the career government employees. It is critically important that these people understand the policies of the administration and that they are motivated to carry them out. Eloquence in the CEO helps communicate and motivate.

A president needs the people of the nation to be behind him if he is to succeed in his programs. There needs to be a social construction of knowledge of the problems faced by the country, the program needed to overcome those problems, and indeed on the appropriateness of the current administration to carry out that program. The president has the "bully pulpit" to catalyze the process by which the public construes the situation and its resolution, and thus eloquence counts here too.

The president needs the support of the Congress, at least to the degree necessary to pass into law the legislation needed for his program and to appropriate the resources it requires. Having the eloquence to help his party's candidates gain and keep Congressional offices helps. So do does it help to have the eloquence to encourage the public to call on the Congress to support his program,

Unless you have seen the impact of the West Wing of the White House on otherwise obstreperous people, you can not fully appreciate the degree to which the ability of the person holding the office to utilize its prestige counts. (That is one of the most indelible impressions I hold from my year as a special assistant to a special assistant in the WH.) Here too, even in the wrestling with individuals and small groups of Congressmen and other influentials, eloquence counts.

Perhaps "charisma" is a better term for the useful facility in a president than "eloquence". Both charisma and eloquence take different forms, and both are more easily recognized where they occur than defined. Reagan played the common man role with quiet expertise, quite different than Roosevelt or Kennedy played their roles of American aristocrats with a common touch. But the Democrats were also extremely effective. In any case, Obama seems to have both charisma and eloquence in abundance!