Hostile words do not inspire voters
Fiery rhetoric may grab attention, but Americans elect and follow leaders who don’t use major speeches to publicly pit them against each other.
“I will fight for you, fight big oil, fight the rich, fight the mainstream media.” It’s not new, but it’s the rhetoric of the age. These are not fighting words uttered to inspire violence. They’re about prevailing in politics. They are rhetorical appeals that set the stage for contentious conflict resolution. But are they effective?
Rhetoric in politics should not be an end in itself. It should inspire support for a position and eventual action. We know how a demagogue uses fighting words to inspire destruction. But what about support for an idea or a candidacy?
Famous speeches don’t focus on fighting
In the few outstanding speeches in the annals of American discourse, there is little reference to fighting. George Washington’s Farewell Address did not use the word. Abraham Lincoln did not use it in the Gettysburg address. His only use in his first inaugural was against the notion of fighting the Civil War.
Fighting words play a lot better in campaign speeches than in building support for governing positions. After all, who gets the blood flowing: John Adams, the diplomat and statesman, or Sam Adams, the fiery orator? Sam Adams had his role. His fighting words were fine for fighting the British. But it was John Adams who understood how to build institutions.
In his first inaugural address, Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” There was not one use of the word “fight.” Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the word fight was not employed. Maybe it was because the war was to be fought, literally, and words seem cheap against that reality.
Fighting is an easily accessible rhetorical device that uses a metaphor of violence to solve a problem. That makes certain assumptions. Those who need to be convinced are enemies. It projects a bias for conflict over compromise.
Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech does not use the word “fight,” despite making clear that his patience for justice was running out. Others were ready for the fight, metaphorical or otherwise. But a look at Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael’s greatest speeches reveals more a call to action than a fight.
The disappearing middle
In the last couple of decades, things have changed. Elections used to be about securing the nomination and then moving to the middle. Primary voters were a bit more liberal or conservative. Each party had a base, but the base was practical. It understood compromise.
There’s not much of a middle remaining. That pushes candidates to more extreme positions in the general election. It’s always been a battle of motivating the base and appealing to the undecided and independents. The strategies have shifted as candidates worry more about turnout than persuasion.
So do fighting words work in the modern era? Think back to last year. Joe Biden’s two most consequential speeches were his acceptance of the Democratic nomination and his inaugural address. He did not use the word “fight” in either one.
Likewise, President Barack Obama avoided talking about fighting his political opponents. His only use of “fight” in his 2008 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was about fighting terrorism. He largely avoided the word in 2012.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren embraced the fighting metaphor. In fact, Warren’s compilation of speeches is titled “Only Righteous Fights.” Her announcement speech was “The Fight of Our Lives.” In any case, her presidential campaign never picked up steam. While Sanders had obvious appeal in 2016, his 2020 campaign gave way to the more soothing language of Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Biden’s calming messages.
President Donald Trump, for all his divisiveness, avoided fighting metaphors in his major addresses, including both of his nomination acceptance speeches. The unfortunate exception was his Jan. 6 speech that motivated the assault on the U.S. Capitol.
Despite our profound differences, Americans don’t respond well to images of fighting each other. At least they don’t respond well when they are selecting leaders. That’s a good thing.
William Lyons worked as a professor of political science at the University of Tennessee and served for more than 16 years in a number of policy-related roles for Knoxville Mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown, Madeline Rogero and Indya Kincannon.