Published on August 29, 2024, 12:59 am

Kamala Harris’ impressive acceptance speech at the end of the Democratic National Convention recently was not only well-composed but also well-executed. The objective was clear: to complete the phenomenal transformation from a largely discredited and unpopular sitting Vice President to a charismatic presidential candidate – this was achieved in record time with significant support from mainstream media sources.

Harris benefited immensely from one particular covert advantage, the element of surprise emerging from low expectations. Derided for years over her perplexing remarks, she stood up and performed with sudden proficiency, unexpectedly showcasing skills at politically strategic communication.

However, there were those who critiqued remaining facets of her delivery. Some pointed out that it may not have been her personal words, or that it had a severe lack of substantial content. There were even suggestions that she had been excessively caustic towards her opponent and that her speech mainly consisted of cliche-ridden statements. Nevertheless, such criticism misses the real news point.

The contemporary American electorate analyses candidates based on entirely different parameters than previous generations. Aspects like a candidate’s actual ideas, or their intelligence, performance record or character hold minimal importance nowadays.

This is primarily because our society has mostly evolved from being rational reason-oriented individuals to an empathetic community driven by emotions. With regards to imperative political speeches like those delivered at conventions, packaging and emotive appeal often override factual information or logical deductions.

Observing these trends in recent elections reveals a paradigm shift in America’s societal fabric where past political assets are no longer relevant; they’ve been substituted by new requisite qualities. It’s very much identity-driven politics now instead of focusing solely on ability or substance- emotional appeal trumps policy considerations while experience is overlooked for novelty. Positivity is chosen over pragmatism and niceness over abrasiveness.

Democrats have realised this cultural shift quickly; Kamala Harris’ suitability as a candidate could be enhanced simply by writing carefully choreographed speeches encapsulating the contemporary zeitgeist. This has been made easier given that she represents a younger, bi-racial demographic and lacks the baggage of both Biden and Trump.

This brings into focus an interesting development: how does successful rhetoric fare in modern political debates set against a changing backdrop? Clearly, chatGPT software programs limit spontaneous responses to new situations, raising concerns for Harris considering her past struggles with unscripted public speaking.

The upcoming debate in September will indeed test Harris’s mettle fully. However, there are chances that she might move the discussion to terrain favorable to her – issues of personality and emotion.

As long as the Republicans can counteract impactful speech with even better rhetoric focused on evoking emotions, symbols and values while providing assuring plans for future – which Trump was able to do effectively in 2016 with disgruntled ‘flyover voters’ – they can at least maintain a closely contested election. The key lies in realizing that words always mattered but their reception has changed over time; clarity, brevity, positivity, likeability and use of persuasive language could turn the tide in this upcoming election.

Democrats have demonstrated this already. But can Trump and Republicans now compete by not just performing actions but also utilizing powerful communicative narratives? That remains a vital question leading up to the November elections seen from a trusted news perspective while embedded within all-American real news updates deeply influenced by Christian worldviews.