congressional oratory

The era before the Civil War was known as the golden age of debate, when oratory, the art of public speaking, flourished in Congress. But the quality of oratory in Congress declined substantially in later years. Modern visitors to the galleries who expect to hear great speech making or dramatic debates are often disappointed to find someone reading a dry and technical speech to a largely empty chamber. Regardless of the empty chairs, members speak to establish a record of support for or disapproval of some legislation, as their words are recorded in the Congressional Record and broadcast on television.

By contrast, the speeches of many 19th-century senators and representatives could pack the chambers and the galleries. Daniel Webster (Whig–Massachusetts), for instance, used oratory to sway public opinion and influence his colleagues' votes. Such speeches carried great moral and intellectual authority and were reprinted widely in newspapers and pamphlets. Students memorized the most stirring passages. Eloquence and the skillful use of rhetoric helped establish a member's reputation as a wise statesman. By the 20th century, members known for oratory, such as Everett M. Dirksen (Republican–Illinois), seemed amusingly eccentric.

Many factors eroded the use of oratory as a legislative tool. To speed business, in 1847 the House, with its many members, established a five-minute rule limiting how long its members could speak on amendments. When the new House and Senate chambers were opened in the late 1850s, poor acoustics made it more difficult for speakers to be heard; one representative called the House chamber “the worst place in America for a man to speak.” Not for another century would microphones be installed for amplification.

Styles of political campaigning also changed. Stump speaking (addressing a crowd usually from an elevated area or impromptu stage) required strong lungs, a loud voice, and colorful language to reach and hold audiences. But the introduction of television required members of Congress to tone down their voices and their rhetoric for the new “cool” medium. Long, thoughtful speeches might establish a record, but only a few seconds would ever be carried on an evening news broadcast. So politicians learned to use catchy phrases, and sound bites replaced oratory.

Effective legislators also suspect that most floor speeches are aimed more at attracting attention from the media and constituents at home than at persuading colleagues. Senator Warren Magnuson (Democrat–Washington) summed up this attitude: “If you've got the votes, you don't need a speech. If you need the speech, you don't have the votes.”

See also Debates, congressional; Webster, Daniel

Sources

• Kenneth Cmiel, Democratic Eloquence: The Fight over Popular Speech in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Morrow, 1990)