Politics has always presented tension between word and deed, often devastatingly so. Though actions can dominate a politician’s legacy, it is misguided to believe his or her words do not matter. How many of JFK’s policies, almost 50 years after his death, do we remember? I’d wager that for most Americans today, his words calling us to mend racial fault lines with empathy, to serve the country with courage, to educate our children with urgency and to put a man on the moon are more resonant. Of course, Kennedy’s work was cut painfully short, but in word, President Obama has been likened to the king of “Camelot.” While he has received similar praise as an orator, he’s also been handed more derision for his impressive speechmaking than his Democratic forebear ever was. Conversely, George W. Bush’s verbal fumbles have been punch lines for a decade running.
So what, in 2011, do we look for in our leaders? What do we expect from officials now under the microscope of 24-hour punditry, Twitter feeds and the unending ebb and tide of praise and ridicule from an ocean of Facebook groups?
In the 1930s, England’s George VI had only talking over “the wireless”—and I mean radio—to worry about. Still, George VI was an underdog king if there ever was such a thing. Even now, clever linguist Winston Churchill towers over George VI as the face of WWII-era England. After King Edward VI abdicated the throne to marry a twice-divorced American actress, his brother “Bertie” Windsor was called to the crown, which meant giving regular radio addresses and pride-rallying wartime speeches despite a lifelong, debilitating stutter.