Traianus Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Today I was watching a TV program whose main theme of conversation was politics and someone said that nowadays politicians have a big lack of oratory, they do not convince people, they just read the speech and ocasionally look at people for it not to be so evident, I instantly thought in Rome and how important was oratoria in their educational system, wasn't it? Was it more important to be an intelligent leader or to know how to win over the masses with nice words, charisma and let's say, a good brand image? did the romans understood politics like this ?? should a good leader know everything about the art of talking in public?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 (edited) Today I was watching a TV program whose main theme of conversation was politics and someone said that nowadays politicians have a big lack of oratory, they do not convince people, they just read the speech and ocasionally look at people for it not to be so evident, I instantly thought in Rome and how important was oratoria in their educational system, wasn't it?Was it more important to be an intelligent leader or to know how to win over the masses with nice words, charisma and let's say, a good brand image? did the romans understood politics like this ?? should a good leader know everything about the art of talking in public?? This is not necessarily correct as several of the British MP's at least cut their teeth in their University debating chambers, while a significant percentage of the rest were practicing lawyers so in theory at least should be able to argue their case. Probably it is truer to say that modern politicians have a limited time in which to carry out their own research so have to rely on information they are provided with by their researchers and may to an extent seem to become lazy being fed scripts by civil servants and/or poitical advisors. The scripts obviously will contain details of the arguments they may be presented with or else have to present to their audience but the pace and style of delivery as well as some details of wording will obviously be down to individual politicians. Ronanld Regan was never really seen as anything other than an actor reading a script in much of the international community however he was able to use his skills as an actor to deliver most of his speeches well. Against that the less said of Bush and all too many other politicians the better. However on the same theme if you go back to Roman times in my view there is some evidence for the same methods being used - even if not recorded. There are innumerable comments by poets like Juvenal and other writers complaining of the Greek philosophical influence on the senior Roman politicians including the various postures that they made during speeches or debates. Maybe politicians have always had a team of slaves researching what was likely to influence particular audiences and providing at least the outine scripts for what was to be said - only fine tuning the presentation. It mayput new light on Cicero having a favourite slave and why all his debating scripts were re-written before publication Melvadius Edited November 7, 2007 by Melvadius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'd say that the most important cause of the decline of oratory is a fundamental change in the political culture. In the Roman republic, ALL political actions--proposals, debates, votes, and vetoes--were conducted face-to-face with your political adversaries, typically before the watchful eyes of the voters. If you wanted to veto a proposal in ancient Rome, you had to show up to the public reading of the bill, and in full view of everyone (including hired thugs who might crack your skull), impose your veto--and to veto the bill in a way that would be seen as immediately justifiable to everyone present. Even political actions that were not conducted before voters (i.e., senatorial debate) had to be conducted in the physical presence of a quorum of the Senate. Today, much--maybe most--actual political action takes place in relative privacy. Bills are drafted in private, can be introduced, debated, voted up or down, and vetoed with only a sliver of the populace ever seeing the drama unfold. At least in the US, speeches can even be "read into the record" by e-mail! Thus, the act of persuasion has moved from the public sphere toward the personal sphere, and so it shouldn't be surprising that political persuasion has lost its theatrical flavoring. Moreover, most of the little political action that is conducted in public is delivered to the public on television; consequently, political action has more of the toned-down quality of the TV actor than that of the stage actor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 And while both Melvadius and MPC touched on this, it's quite important to make clear... there simply were no immediate methods of communication except for open oratory. Certainly there were books and written postings in community fora, etc. but oratory was the primary method of delivering one's message in the ancient world. Part of being a politician is mastering the art of communication in their particular environment, regardless of the form it takes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.