Political speeches are boring, in my opinion. I assume that some people find it interesting, specifically noting the political major people. I am animal science major, and the biggest reason why I try my best to avoid contacting with political speeches is that I do not understand the background history at all. I am horrible at history, in general. But when I am forced to read some of the famous political speeches for my English class, I noticed that effective speeches have one thing in common. They successfully achieve audiences’ sympathy. For example, let me compare Josephine Baker’s speech at the March on Washington given at 1963, and the first inaugural address by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Before grabbing the audiences’ heart though, the speaker needs adequate level of credibility/background. These elements catch attention, and make the…show more content… One is the narrative method, which Josephine Baker used. “I am not a young woman now, friends. My life is behind me. There is not too much fire burning inside me. And before it goes out, I want you to use what is left to light that fire in you. So you can carry on, and so that you can do those things that I have done” (Baker, paragraph 18). In the year Baker gave her speech, she was 57 years old. Humans easily get emotional to tragedy or death stories, and she brilliantly used her age to convince the audience to stand up for themselves while they are still young and healthy. The other method is the proposal type, which President Obama used. “And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost” (Obama, paragraph 12). Presenting ideas that the audience craves for collects definite sympathy and
