高清福利片

The recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago was a聽. Presidential nominee Kamala Harris聽聽with a strong acceptance speech, but even she couldn鈥檛 match the oratorical power of聽听补苍诲听聽Obama two nights earlier.

US political culture is marked by visionary speeches, from Abraham Lincoln鈥檚聽聽and William Jennings Bryan鈥檚 鈥溾�� to Martin Luther King鈥檚 鈥溾�� and Ronald Reagan鈥檚 鈥溾��. This rhetorical tradition infuses events such as party conventions, where memorable speeches can聽.

Australia also has some justly famous political speeches. There was Robert Menzies鈥� 鈥溾�� address of 1942, Paul Keating鈥檚聽聽in 1992, and Julia Gillard鈥檚 鈥溾�� to parliament in 2012. Noel Pearson鈥檚聽聽in 2014 was a聽.

But these speeches are memorable because they are so rare. Australian politicians need to be good communicators, but they are not expected to deliver the kind of soaring, visionary rhetoric we see so often in the US. Why is this?

Politics with the soul of a church

US party conventions often look like聽, and聽聽of the recent DNC. Hollywood has become an indelible part of US political culture.

Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, set new standards for how聽听补苍诲听聽presidents could be. Donald Trump may not be everyone鈥檚 idea of a great orator, but the former reality TV star is certainly a聽.

The tradition of preaching is an even deeper cultural source of US political rhetoric. With about聽, the sermon is the most prevalent form of public speech in the US.

American preachers need to be compelling, given the level of religious competition, and church is where many future politicians first encounter the craft of public speaking. American political speeches often reflect the combination of聽聽found in preaching.

While evangelical Christianity is usually associated with the Republican Party, it is also in the DNA of Democrats because of the聽. One of the standout speakers of the DNC was聽, senior pastor of the聽.

Warnock described Trump in biblical terms as a 鈥減lague on the American conscience鈥�. But he also described a vote as 鈥渁 kind of prayer for the world we desire for ourselves and for our children鈥�.

Australia has no shortage of politicians who were raised as Christians and have Christian commitments. But unlike in the US, where even secular politicians must pay lip service to prayer, Christian politicians in Australia must聽聽to the聽. This culture does not expect politicians to preach.

Strong speeches for weak parties

Michelle Grattan last week described Australian party conferences as 鈥溾�� compared with the 鈥淗ollywood extravaganzas鈥� of their US counterparts.

But the spectacles at US party conventions testify to the聽聽of American political parties. The Democratic and Republican National Committees have聽. Party organisations are localised and fragmented. They lack the central authority found in Australian parties, and the national convention every four years is the only time a nationwide party truly comes into existence.

Even in Congress, parties have few mechanisms for聽. Party leaders are forced to negotiate with their own side,聽. Party conventions see an extravagant display of unity behind a newly nominated candidate. This is one of the few moments party unity is guaranteed.

While there is plenty of competition for power within Australian parties, in Australia it mostly takes place聽. In the US, would-be legislators and executives need to campaign publicly to win the often brutal primary elections that earn them the party鈥檚 nomination.

Successful candidates must create their own personalised campaigns. They have help from local party organisations, which coordinate resources and volunteers, but they need much more than that. A candidate for national office must build their own coalition of donors that would聽聽anything a party could provide.

Hence the need for good speech-making. Competition for the attention of donors and voters is fierce, and a compelling speech is a vital way to stand out. This is especially true of聽, who came from outside the party鈥檚 traditional power bases.

In Australia, inspirational speeches don鈥檛 have the same political currency. A system of聽, small preselection contests and聽聽means candidates are rewarded more for other political skills.

The Australian advantage: debating

While a US politician might give a more entertaining stump speech than an Australian one, an Australian politician would probably perform better in any scenario that requires unscripted comments 鈥� especially a debate with an opponent.

Even superb US political orators can be聽聽when they don鈥檛 have a script and a receptive audience. Congressional debates consist of prepared speeches with little direct engagement between opponents. There is no equivalent to聽, and holders of executive office (such as the president or state governors) aren鈥檛 even in the legislature.

While Congressional committee hearings can sometimes provide a聽聽we associate with Question Time, the structure of Congress isn鈥檛 conducive to debate in the same way.

The physical format of Westminster parliaments, with opponents facing each other directly, attests to an adversarial nature that was聽. The power of Gillard鈥檚 鈥渕isogyny speech鈥�, which went viral globally, came partly from the way she delivered it聽.

US Congress was designed differently. The framers of the Constitution loathed the idea of聽, and imagined a legislature made up of representatives who would negotiate with each other to find consensus. Congress in turn would have to negotiate with the president, who would聽聽with its members.

This may explain why, despite the routine brilliance of convention speeches, US presidential debates are so tedious and forgettable. Commentators who try to hype these debates by citing 鈥済reat moments鈥� from past debates inevitably reach for the same ancient zinger, 鈥溾��, delivered by forgotten vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.

The sad reality is that the most memorable and consequential presidential debate in living memory is the one we just saw, where Joe Biden performed so badly he ended his hopes of a second presidency.

In the land of the scripted, the聽.

Authored by David Smith, Associate Professor of American Politics and Foreign Policy,聽Department of Government and International Relations within the School of Social and Political Sciences.聽This story was first published on .