20 July 2009 is, of course, the fortieth anniversary of the lunar landing. It's a fitting day to look at the rhetorical leadership of President Kennedy. On 25 May 1961 (shout-out for Amy Gore's birthday), Kennedy delivered a speech arguing for a push to the moon before the end of the decade of the sixties. In the speech above, Kennedy clarifies and hones that argument, 12 September 1962, at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas.
In the opening of the speech, Kennedy presents a condensed stadial theory to describe the development of human technologies related to learning, progress, and the invention of transportation. This theory is presented to inoculate listeners from the naysayers and Eeyores among us who would advise caution and safety over risk-taking and adventure. It is rhetorically astute that Kennedy presents the theory in a condensed form to hold the audience's attention and to keep them focused on the question of our immediate readiness for such a mission.
Man in his quest for knowledge is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead whether we join it or not.Kennedy places repeated emphasis on the importance of learning and knowledge that the mission to the moon serves. This is appropriate, of course, because he is delivering the speech at a university, but it is significant for another reason, which is that by speaking about the advantages of knowledge in deliberate contrast to an effort to seek military advantage, Kennedy shows himself a true liberal.
For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and the planets beyond.First and foremost, this line is important because it is an echo of one of the most crucial lines in American rhetorical discourse. That line was spoken by earlier adventurers and explorers who were willing to leave their homes and homeland to venture into new territory: John Winthrop on the Arbella announced to the first settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony that the eyes of the whole world are upon us. Fitting that the line should be echoed by a Massachusetts man. Fitting, too, because Kennedy shifts attention from America as promised land to America as world leader in a quest to explore space and to learn from our vast environment.
We have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this nation can only be fulfilled if we in this nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first.This powerful statement points again toward a pursuit of knowledge in contrast to a pursuit of warmongering or the arms race. I can't help but think of all the talk of WMD in the war on terror when I read this line, or Mr. Reagan's push for a Star Wars system to protect us from Soviet missiles - in direct opposition to the leadership Mr. Kennedy shows of pursuing peace, knowledge, and understanding. Of course I am aware that Mr. Kennedy's record on WMD is far from flawless in the sense that he contemplated their use and allowed them to become the cause of major incident. Nevertheless, contradictions and dissembling notwithstanding, I can't help but want to get in line behind a desire to explore space for knowledge and understanding rather than for the purpose of putting armaments in the sky. The contrast in leadership is worth noting. I also wonder in passing if anyone has ever done a study of the origins of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." I was a bit surprised to find that phrasing in this speech.
Another important element of the speech is the recurring theme of competition. The historian David McCullough has noted the importance of rivals in history, for they play an essential role in driving individuals to accomplish great things and in shaping them and providing them motivation. The rival, and of course it is mentioned and criticized, is the Soviet Union. I can't help but think that we should thank the USSR for helping us accomplish our goal to walk on the moon before the end of the decade of the sixties.
What is worth mentioning is the fact that Mr. Kennedy repeatedly refers to rivalries and motivation using metaphors drawn from the world of sport. "Why does Rice play Texas?," is a brilliant line - for the occasion, of course, as it draws the most applause, but also because I think it sends an implicit message to the Soviet Union that the USA is capable of thinking of our own rivalry in a sportsmanlike way. Again, he could have chosen military metaphors, or some other more aggressive way to express himself, but indeed he did not. I think that is to his credit (and probably to Ted Sorensen's, too).
A few more things worth mentioning:
*Mr. Kennedy's excellent use of clear examples, like 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators to the floor.
*Mr. Kennedy's clapping of his hands for emphasis as he nears the conclusion - as if to encourage a round of applause, but also to draw the audience toward assenting to the plan.
*Mr. Kennedy's reference to the heat of September days in Texas really get the audience excited. If you've lived in Texas, you know what he means.
In conclusion, it's clear to me that the speech shows considerable leadership in the push to explore space and to land a man on the moon. It would be nice if our readers, if there be any, could comment on their thoughts about JFK's speech. I would be particularly interested in hearing from those who might remember Kennedy's moon rhetoric or who might be willing to share their memories of the day humans walked on the moon.
(A copy of this essay was cross-posted at www.omninerd.com.)
4 comments:
Usually when I see a YouTube timer that long, I think...yeeeeeeah, maybe I'll watch that later. But that was good enough that I clicked play and ended up sitting through the whole thing. Cool post.
I like pondering the question of positive leadership versus its alternative. Not to get Machiavellian but I go straight to wondering if there is a way to show which is more effective. But this speech is inspiring and I think I am starting to get why JFK was so popular. I agree, I'd rather follow someone with noble aspirations, though I wonder how much is a question of phrasing.
If you're pro-Wikipedia, they have an answer for your WMD question. I remember people treating the phrase like it was some kind of comedy when we invaded Iraq but as a longtime Tom Clancy fan it was already old hat to me.
Ah, I'm glad you enjoyed the speech and the post.
Are you raising the question of how much of good leadership is a matter of phrasing? or how much of the impression of good leadership (popularity) is boiled down to phrasing rather than to actual noble aspirations? Not sure which. There is a lot of ink spilt on both questions, but most of it boils down to the fact that audiences are generally quite perceptive and will eventually see through pretension and duplicity. Of course, that is giving them a lot of credit. I think there is trouble whenever we think it's all one or all the other. The truth is, as Cicero said, the tongue and the brain are connected.
Thanks for the wikipedia post. That went a long way toward answering what I was after. (And Tom Clancy is cool. I still can't figure out which one I'm supposed to be on . . .)
The moon landing was a hoax. Pass it on.
The speech was incredible but I wonder if it isn't the art of speechwriting that we have lost. Perhaps that has something to do with the art of education which has been lost--both for the speechwriters and the listeners. It seems everything today has to be dummied down. Indeed I do remember where I was when the astronauts landed on the moon; I was glued to my television (tiny by today's standards) and ironing (no surprise there) and will never forget that all the networks chose to play the song Claire de Lune in the background. It was an inspiring day--fortunately in California it was still daylight. Of course you could see it replayed but not as many times as you would today.
Post a Comment