As the saying goes, all politics is local, and in many cases, it boils right down to one person trying to convince another of their point of view. Political speech, whether done one on one, or one to several still features a vital role to play during a democracy.
Unfortunately, many attempts at political persuasion fall on rocky soil and never settle . In many cases this is often because the speaker is so impassioned about their point of view, that they get over excited and fail to heed a couple of lessons one might devour at their local Toastmaster’s club.
Among the foremost common failings, I’ve notice in my 40 plus years of active political involvement are lack of focus, ineffective evaluation technique, and lack of respect for the audience.
For many of the foremost passionate political operatives, the “other guy” is usually an S.O.B. who did this, and did that, and/or who didn’t do zip like they ought to have. This particular passion is nonpartisan and afflicts many a true believer regardless of their political affinity.
For this person, the toughest a part of a Toastmaster membership would be living within the standard 5–7-minute limit on most speeches. it might take a minimum of that long just to itemize the heinous negatives their opponent personifies.
Had they a Toastmaster’s temperament, they might spend their 5 to 7 minutes on one key fault of their opponent and make one focused effort to elucidate why it matters to their listener.
The second lesson they might have picked up with their Toastmaster membership was the skill to properly evaluate their opponent. they might soon devour on the “sandwich” approach to evaluation want to provide constructive criticism to fellow club members after a speech. The sandwich starts with something the evaluator likes about the speech, then offers some constructive criticism, and eventually ends with a parting positive point.
This is an efficient way of offering constructive criticism and takes away the harshness or bitterness. an equivalent technique are often effective during a persuasive political speech also . While one would expect the sandwich to be much more filled with the “beef,” the finding of a minimum of some positive comments would soften the harshness of the speech within the ears of the beholders. intrinsically it’ll appear more reasoned and rational and thus more believable. which may be a critical element of any persuasive speech.
Finally, the common problem many political partisans share is their tendency to think everyone sees the planet , (or should see the world) from their particular perspective. Fitting your speech to your audience’s actual point of view is important if you hope to be effective in your persuasion. It might be that a lot of political speakers tend to focus more on speaking to not persuade, but to convince their fellow travelers of their personal purity and keenness on the points presented. While such poisoned prose may prove passion, it does nothing to influence others, and for a few proves that their opponents are irrational – leading to dismissal of their point of view.
The actual fact that political divisions exist proves that viewpoints can differ. Understanding the points of view of these who don’t currently accept as true with you is important if you’re to realize their attention to your point of view. Once you are doing , you’ll or might not achieve success in connecting the dots to point out them the trail to righteousness as you see it. But you’ll have a far better chance to try so.
While much of political campaigns are today conducted in sound-bites within the mass media, there’s still a task for grass roots, people to people politics. the talents learned during a Toastmaster club and presented here could help improve the standard of persuasive speech and strengthen the democracy we cherish.