Roman Goerss

Professor Hanson

Public Speaking

12/08/07

Speaking in the community:

A report on Dan Evans’ "Where Have All the Moderates Gone?"

On Thursday, November 1 former Governor Dan Evans gave a speech in Chism Hall entitled "Where Have All the Moderates Gone?" He spoke for about 45 minutes on a range of topics from his personal experiences in politics to his ideas about effective government and leadership.

The former governor’s speaking style was very relaxed and inviting. His deep, resonant voice carried very effectively throughout the hall without seeming booming or intrusive. He opened the speech with humor, and although he was serious for most of the speech he kept his tone light enough that it never became boring or felt like he was lecturing to the audience. His posture was very still and dignified, which prevented any distractions from his speaking. He also made a good use of hand gestures, placing casual emphasis where it was due. He captured his audience's attention without even seeming to try.

His lecture was very anecdotal in style. Rather than focusing exclusively on a key point, message or feeling he was trying to convey, Governor Evans told a series of stories about his personal experiences that linked together his narrative about politics. It was clear he had a wealth of memories to draw upon, and while the speech could be a little unfocused at times it consistently held the audience's attention. His most effective rhetorical tactic was probably this use of anecdotes. He could make a general statement about politics, and then transition to a story that illustrated his point with concrete examples from his experiences as a politician.

He was also a skilled at accounting for places where he was going to differ from his audience. He spent more time on points that he seemed to feel his audience would disagree with, acknowledging that his audience might disagree with them and then explaining why he felt the way he did. He managed, however, to avoid seeming argumentative or like he was dwelling too much on the opinions of the audience, and his speech retained momentum.

He created an interesting link between himself and his audience using a sort of roundabout method. Rather than emphasizing commonalities between himself and his specific audience, he told a story about Whitman College and how much the support of Whitman College alumni had meant to him when he was campaigning for office. Without forging a direct connection between himself and his audience, he nonetheless managed to create a sense of community with us by emphasizing our shared bond with the college. It was a very indirect, but effective tactic that helped bridge the gap between the governor and his audience.

There were a few things about the speech that I thought could have been improved. Although the former governor was a very charismatic speaker and excelled at drawing in his audience, in retrospect I am not entirely sure what he wanted us to take away from the speech. Although he returned to his central question of "Where Have All the Moderates Gone?" several times during the speech he spent little time answering it and the few answers he gave were not very detailed. From his lecture title it sounded like he was going to give a speech about modern politics, but the speech at times played out more like a series of disconnected history lessons. Although he had several messages and themes, what happened to the moderates did not seem to be chief among them, or even one of his major concerns. At the end of the speech, I was impressed by his rhetorical skill but uncertain of what messages, lessons or even information the former governor had been trying to communicate.

Secondly, his speech was so anecdotal at times it could seem wandering and unfocused. Although his actual method of speaking was very captivating, his transitions between points were sometimes somewhat unclear and there were instances in which he simply began a new topic or anecdote without giving a clear sense of how it related to the overall speech. I would've liked his speech to have made clearer how his points and his stories fit together into a cohesive whole rather than the captivating but somewhat unfocused style he employed.

He answered most of the questions at the end of the lecture very effectively, and I was impressed both by the depth of his knowledge and his ability to explain things. One question I did not think he handled particularly well was an instance when one member of the audience asked about a specific ballot measure that many in the room were probably unfamiliar with. Rather than briefly sketching what the bill was so the rest of the audience could follow the discussion, the former governor launched into a detailed answer that likely left many people wondering what he was talking about.

Overall, the speech was engaging and interesting. Although I would've liked a stronger sense of what we were supposed to take away as an audience and a stronger sense of cohesion among his points, his speech conveyed a great deal of personality and a number of fascinating anecdotes.