A Tale of Two Cities

TL;DR

1. What makes a speech worth listening to

2. The secret of audience engagement

What makes a speech worth listening to

This week we’re looking at a classic speech, not a current one.

You can watch the full speech here, or read about it on Wikipedia here.

Titled A Tale of Two Cities, this speech was delivered by Mario Cuomo, Governor of New York, to the 1884 Democratic Convention in the U.S.

it goes for 30 minutes – but he held the audience mesmerised.

In fact, they were so engaged, he had to stop a whopping 52 times – once for every week of the year – because the applause was too loud for him to continue.

My record as a speechwriter is only two stops for applause – 52 is incredible.

So what’s the secret?

Actually, there are three.

First, Cuomo understood the first rule of persuasion:

Confirm your audience’s beliefs, and throw rocks at their enemies.

Cuomo frames his entire speech around a comment made by then-President Reagan, and the message from which he never deviates is that Reagan and the Republicans don’t understand, but the Democrats do.

Remember, he’s speaking to the Democratic Convention.

He’s also speaking to all the poor people in America who felt unheard.

So by framing his message around the idea that Reagan was out of touch, he didn’t have a hard sell.

He was simply confirming what his audience already believed.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, he never deviates from his message.

I’ve said this a hundred times, and I’ll say it again: a speech may DO many things, but it can only SAY ONE THING.

Mario Cuomo says only one thing: Reagan and the Republicans don’t understand, but Democrats do.

Third, Cuomo makes his point concrete.

He doesn’t just say that Reagan is out of touch.

No.

Let’s look at what he says:

“Maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places; maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds; maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe—Maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn't afford to use.”

Cuomo uses four different images. Four different examples.

Six, if you include Reagan’s imagined response.

All these images drive home the point that Cuomo understands – but they also make the message REAL.

And that’s priceless.

So what makes Cuomo’s speech a speech worth listening to?

Simple:

A speech worth listening to doesn’t teach, it represents.

Cuomo wasn’t telling anyone what to think.

He was voicing and expressing what they already thought.

Yes, he was extending it, perfecting it, strengthening it.

But it was already there.

All he was doing was giving it voice.

Turning it into a powerful message.

And that’s what makes a speech worth listening to.

The secret of audience engagement

This leads me to the second thing that makes Cuomo’s a classic speech.

He didn’t just look like he understood – he genuinely did.

And that’s the secret to audience engagement.

The actual writing time is usually the shortest part of speechwriting.

The research phase is normally at least twice as long.

That’s no exaggeration.

I once had just under four hours to write a speech in response to a terrorist attack.

I spent the first 2.5 hours reading and researching.

I read everything I could find on the attack, on who was effected, who made statements in response.

I found out everything I could about the place where the attack happened.

About who would be at the event where the speech was taking place.

What their connection to the event was.

Everything,.

I spent just over 60 minutes doing the actual writing.

But the speech went off like a dream.

Why?

Because I took the time to master message and matter.

And that’s the secret to audience engagement.

Anyone can stay on message.

But it needs to be connected with a deep understanding of the matter (i.e. the subject-matter), too.

Mario Cuomo knew this too. Let me quote from the Wikipedia page, and you’ll see:

“Andrew Cuomo and Russert reviewed footage of past convention keynote addresses to devise a strategy for maximizing the speech's resonance with the audience. Mario Cuomo spent several days sifting through various ideas and determining his argument. He penned a draft on July 7. Lawyer Mark Green and journalist Jack Newfield both offered suggestions for the language. Cuomo read numerous versions aloud in the dining room of the New York State Executive Mansion to his advisers and went through up to 60 different drafts before he was "comfortable" with the work. When he felt it was nearly finished, he presented it to his staff in the press room of the governor's office in 2 World Trade Center. They were unmoved, so he revised his argument by moving his criticism of Reagan's policies from the middle of the speech to the beginning. Cuomo delivered it again, but Andrew voiced his concern that the ending was not rhetorically potent. Cuomo's chief speechwriter, Peter Quinn, then read through the governor's diaries to find a life event he could write about. Quinn settled on incorporating a story of Cuomo's father, an Italian immigrant, working long shifts at his grocery store until his feet bled.”

That’s a lot of research and prep.

But it paid off.

---

What are your thoughts on audience engagement or what makes a speech worth listening to?

Let me know – and feel free to disagree!

Until next week,

Alexander

P.S.

Need #speechwriting, corporate training, or coaching? DM me on LinkedIn or send me an email at [email protected]