Location, Location, Location

Where a speech takes place can be at least as important to how the speech is received as the content of the speech itself. Location led to a Republican a near-miss in their response to the State of the Union a hit for the President in his appearance before the Republican retreat a few days later.

The location of a speech helps tell the audience what the speech is about, and intentionally or otherwise can effectively become, the contents of the address.

An example of this is President George W. Bush’s third address to the nation after 9/11. A New York Times Magazine story on the address noted that the location of the speech was determined before a single word was written. The options being discussed were the Army War College (the President would look strong), the Oval Office (he would look in control and the setting would be intimate) or an invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress. Without yet anything to say beyond the two speeches on the attack he had already given the decision was made to address Congress because it would present an image of national unity and the President did well when addressing large audiences.

Which brings us to the Republican response to the State of the Union address.

The State of the Union is delivered by the most powerful leader on the planet, before the federal elected and appointed leaders of the world’s leading democracy, in one of the most important deliberative chambers on earth. This year the speech was given by one of the most gifted political orators of our generation. The Republicans saw this strength as a weakness and moved to exploit it. If the President was going to be surrounded by powerful Washington elite and use high rhetoric to inspire the Republicans were going to be surrounded by actual people and talk to them as if there were actual people, thus highlighting the inside/outside, us versus them dynamic that helped elect Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. The speech was given from the Virginia House of Delegates to an invited audience of policy makers, business owners and others. A great idea, but the House of Delegates, no matter how impressive, pales in comparison to the House of Representatives. An assembled audience of non-politicians in a political chamber that is not as nice as Congress makes that audience look not as good as Congress. It was the State of the Union – light, a local access version of a network news program. A better option would have been to hold the response in a local diner – same crowd, same words, different place and different message.

On the flip side is the President’s discussion (debate?) with Republicans at their meeting in Baltimore. By going to them the President, in the words of some pundits, entered the “lion’s den.” He demonstrated power and strength by taking on Republicans on their turf and coming out glowing ; it’s the Red Sox beating the Yankees in New York. The exact same conversation with the exact same people in the White House mess or on a meeting room in the Rayburn House Office Building would not have had the same effect – it would have been a different and less persuasive event.

Advocates often use the power of location to their advantage. But too often they either don’t think about the location and thus miss an opportunity to make their point (or even undermine it), or they carefully select a location that contradicts the larger point they are trying to make.
In rhetoric, as in real estate, location matters.