Seldom seen as game changers, political speeches seem to be making a difference this year, whether it’s the Republican Debates or the State of the Union address.
What appears to be making a difference? I believe it’s the level of applause.
At the South Carolina debate Newt Gingrich went from almost worst to first, in large part due to the audience reaction he received by taking on the moderator, John King, during a televised debate. Gingrich’s sharply crafted attack of King’s opening question pertaining to Gingrich’s personal life generated sustained audience applause heard around the globe! Practically every news source covered the question and the response – by Gingrich and the audience – in some detail, and the pundits now believe that it may have been the reason so many people voted the way they did.
At the annual State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama’s speech generated what appears to be a near record 80+ moments of applause and, in a year of great political divide, many times the applause was from “both sides.” Several times it seemed practically everyone was standing (“For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country”) and then here were moments when the applause was as divided as the Congress itself (“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow.”).( http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html?hp)
Will the state of the Union change? Time will tell, but the speech continued to receive “applause” as many in the news cycle’s version of the Monday Morning Quarterback, divided as usual along ideological lines, found room to at least compliment Mr. Obama’s oratory skills
Now we hear that at least one Republican Presidential candidate may not appear at future televised debates if there is no applause allowed (as was the case at the Florida, NBC debate). Why? He knows what we are discovering this year: politics is a spectator sport. Watching the Super Bowl by yourself is just not the same experience as it is with your friends or in a crowded room; a political speech/debate is just not the same without some hooting and hollering.
Should we have political debates with or without audience participation? One could probably make an argument that the 1st Amendment comes into play here, but, as is often said today, that decision is well above my pay grade.