Nib #14: Biden’s Botched SOTU, Part 4: Inspiring… divisiveness?

 The emotional climax of a speech is called the “peroration.” Think Martin Luther King’s “Free at last, free at least, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” Or Mel Gibson in Braveheart: “… our enemies may take our lives, but they’ll never take our FREEDOM!” 


Not every speech needs an inspiring conclusion. Sometimes you want to throttle back, depending on the audience, topic, setting, and goal. But in 99.9% of speeches, even if the moment doesn’t call for soaring poetry, you at least want the ending to be unifying, inclusive, and inviting. 


President Biden’s State of the Union Address last month failed this test so badly, so counterproductively, I feel like it must have been added by someone outside the White House speechwriting office. 


 SOTU Peroration Fail #2: All Americans … except you!


Here is the relevant text:


“I see a future where we defend democracy not diminish it. I see a future where we restore the right to choose and protect other freedoms not take them away. I see a future where the middle class finally has a fair shot and the wealthy finally have to pay their fair share in taxes. I see a future where we save the planet from the climate crisis and our country from gun violence. 


“Above all, I see a future for all Americans! I see a country for all Americans! And I will always be a president for all Americans! Because I believe in America! I believe in you the American people. 


Those “nots” in the first paragraph are straight cringe. Biden is using the peroration — the emotional, “come-on-board-and-join-the-team” section of his biggest speech of the year — to… exclude a lot of people!


Earlier in the speech, Biden established that people who “diminish democracy” refers to everyone thinking about voting for Donald Trump. And that “take [rights] away” bit means people who lean pro-life.


In other words, Biden’s “vision for the country” explicitly excludes about half the country!


Why? Why would he do this? It helps literally no one… except maybe Donald Trump!


 And then, as if to put this nonsense on stilts, the president immediately pivots to, “Above all, I see a future for all Americans! I see a country for all Americans!” Except… no! You don’t! Go read the previous paragraph! You just excluded 150 million people from that future, for no reason other than partisan tingles!


 Instead of inclusive and inspiring - or at least back-slappingly bonhomie-ish like Biden usually tries to be — the peroration becomes petty, discriminatory, and self-contradictory… to no benefit!



“I see a future where we defend our democracy … where all our freedoms are protected … where the middle class finally has a fair shot.”


 But no. That might have appealed to … too many voters! Sigh.


 The lesson this week: if a speech meant to persuade people requires contrasts, partisanship, and even attacks — and many do! — don’t put those things at the end. It will leave a bad taste in the audience’s mouth. Close with unity and uplift.


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