Nib #12: Biden’s Botched SOTU, Part 2: Personal Pronoun Problems

 As a rule, “Write like you talk” is good advice. Spoken language is human beings’ native tongue. (That’s why writing is so hard: see Nib #3 here.)


One of the few caveats to this rule pertains to personal pronouns. Americans today say I, we, us, you, your, our, and my so frequently and so casually that young writers are stunned by how powerfully those words can come across on the page.


It is apparently a lesson President Biden’s speechwriters are still learning, too.


Last week, we explored the unhelpfully aggressive tone of Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address and how it undermined what could have been an effective speech.


But there was another glaring unforced error in the text: its misuse and abuse of personal pronouns.


This week, I roughly charted every election-year State of the Union’s use of personal pronouns going back to Jimmy Carter’s in 1980. (See chart below.) It’s a small sample size and imperfect metric, of course. But even so, Biden’s speech stands out. 

Biden’s speech used the word “I” 114 times, more than any other election-year SOTU except Bill Clinton’s self-congratulatory swan-song in 2000 (122 times) — and not by a little. He referred to himself more than twice as often as Donald Trump in 2020 (46 I's), Barack Obama in 2016 (44 I's) or 2012 (45 I's), or George W. Bush in 2008 (31 I's) or 2004 (27 I's).


His SOTU used the words “me” (20 times) and “my” (48 times) more than any other’s. He also said “you” — probably the most subtly aggressive, accusatory word in written English — 64 times, more than any other except, again, Clinton in 2000 (83 times).


Moreover, Biden’s use of the more inclusive, first-person plural pronouns “our” (38 times) and “we” (64 times) ranked dead last and next-to-last of the 12 speeches.


Just like last week’s Nib, this is not a critique of Biden’s growling delivery of the SOTU, or the policies it advocated. Strictly as a matter of persuasive writing, 114 I’s cannot but undermine a speech supposedly about the future of the country and fighting for the little guy.


Sixty-four “you’s” from an unpopular president ostensibly trying to unify the country has the same problem. This speech should have been all “us” and “we” and “our.”


In 2024, Joe Biden isn’t just running against Donald Trump and the Republicans. He is running against the perception that his party and administration are elitist, out of touch, and look down on everyday Americans.


His State of the Union should have helped change that perception. Instead, Biden’s personal pronoun problem exacerbated it.


The lesson for young speechwriters? Whenever possible, make the first person plural and the second person gracious.


Until next week… keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts