Discourteous

The most polite description made of President Aquino’s final State of the Nation Address was that the speech was “long.” As soon as the speech ended, many in the audience rushed to the comfort rooms for relief.

In being “long,” it was also discourteous. Only tyrants like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and North Korea’s Kim Il Sung delivered marathon speeches.

Such speeches took no account of the convenience of the audience. They were exercises in political narcissism. Those making long speeches derive joy from holding their audiences captive, enduring their meandering verbiage.

The norm for such addresses is 45 minutes, with 15 minutes allowed for applause. By 5 o’clock, the ceremony was done. Someone forgot to remind Aquino about the protocol regarding this. He probably would not listen anyway.

There is nothing impressive about long speeches. They can only indicate indiscipline in preparation. The challenge in preparing important addresses is how to condense so much substance in a reasonable economy of words.

As a rule, every important address must revolve around a clear theme, a single message. The shorter the speech, the better the impact. The model here is always Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. In its brevity, it communicated a timeless message — one that continues to guide the ethics of modern politics.

A good speech is pretty much like a good essay. It starts with a strong lead. It is tightly structured to support its conclusions.

A good speech can never be drawn from aimless banter. It must be worked and reworked, preferably with a test audience to judge impact.

A good speech must have integrity. It must internally cohere. The facts ought to be rigorously checked. Like a good dress shirt, the composition must be creaseless and, if possible, seamless.

Presidential speeches, especially the major national addresses, should be able to rally the nation, heal divisions, raise public morale. When possible, they must also be edifying so that every citizen feels benefitted by having spent time listening to their leader.

The rhetoric must be compelling but not verbose. The text must be concise but clear. Not a single word is excessive.

Presidential speeches are never about the presidents. They are always about the nation. The best such speeches allow the leader to soar above the rest, convey a superior vantage point.

State of the Nation Addresses are, ultimately, budget speeches. The reason the President goes to Congress (with its power over the purse) is to ask for a budget. He explains how the previous budget was spent.

He is there to make a report and ask for money. He is not there to overpower the legislature, impose his petty concerns on them or insult them with falsehood. The State of the Nation Address must have grandeur but also humility, respecting the Congress’ power over the purse.

Imagine the president of a corporation appearing before his board of directors to report on the company’s performance. He is not there to talk about himself, which does not interest the board. If he is boastful, the board will be offended. If he is petty, the board fires him. If his report is inaccurate, it is the duty of the board to call him out on the inaccuracies.

It is a wonder, then, that the legislators applauded last Monday’s SONA. It insulted them. It insulted all citizens.

Never mind that this address, like the five previous ones, was badly composed, disjointed and riddled with inaccuracies. No one ever accused Noynoy Aquino of eloquence.

The SONA did not accomplish what it should have. It did not properly report government’s performance the past year. It did not justify why the administration is asking for a humungous budget for next year.

This last SONA was self-indulgent.

While the President consumed much time thanking his underlings – including his hairdresser, his tailor and his housekeeper – he did not touch on the things foremost in the minds of our citizens. It was not a speech sensitive to the real audience out there.

He made no mention of the heroes martyred in Mamasapano even as this was an event that wounded the nation deeply. The families of the troopers continue to cry out for justice — and for the undelivered benefits government promised them.

He made no mention of the painfully slow recovery effort at the Yolanda-affected areas. For that matter, he did not mention why, two years after Aquino and Roxas played generals with disastrous results, people still live in tents.

He did not lay out a plan to relieve the horrendous traffic situation that makes, for most of us, life in the metropolis seem nasty, brutish and short. He unveiled no plan to rapidly improve our decrepit mass transit systems that take so much out of our economic dynamism and quality of life.

He made no mention of tax reform. Our wage-earners are the most taxed in the region, a fact that brings down real purchasing power for the struggling middle classes.

Instead, he asks Congress to pass his bizarre pet project, the BBL, which will deeply divide the nation. He took an about-face on the anti-dynasty bill, asking Congress to quickly pass what is really the LP’s Plan B to stop Jejomar Binay.

He did not ask the nation to rise above itself and conquer new heights. The perversely partisan subtext in his speech asks voters to support his designated successor.

First he violated all the rules about what makes for a good speech. Then he proceeds to violate good taste, praising his incompetent cabal to high heavens while designating himself the font of the nation’s salvation.