The National Catholic Forensics League has very clear (although often unspoken) rules for those hoping to succeed in the category of Original Oratory. Having competed in the NCFL for four years, I know these rules inside and out, and the first thing that I thought when I picked up the National Security League’s “Handbook of the War for Public Speakers” was oh, my god, they’re following all of the rules.
Rule Number One is to start with a quote, usually from a respected or well-known person. The Handbook’s first page after the title contains a selection of political rhetoric from Abraham Lincoln that stresses the value of American freedom and the unfortunate necessity of sometimes having to fight for it (Hart 2). Although Lincoln spoke of a war that took place fifty years prior and within American borders, the NSL nevertheless appropriates his words to lend authority to their argument regarding the present war in Europe. Additionally, as a good orator would, the editors refer back to Lincoln’s gloomy prognosis about the inevitability of the war when they make their claim about the justice and necessity of entering into WWI (Hart 2). The succeeding chapters of the handbook provide further sources of quotes and evidence to lend credibility to an orator’s argument.
Rule Number 2 of the NCFL is to provide a roadmap for the listener of what the speaker intends to cover. The editors make clear that they have two main goals in publishing the handbook and writing its introduction: to provide an introduction to the pro-war standpoint and to enable the education of the “citizens of the Republic” regarding the importance of going to war (Hart 3). They elaborate on the first point by placing the Handbook in the context of other volumes which the NSL plans to publish, giving an idea of the vast scope of the organization’s propaganda activities. In the second case, they appropriate the progressive idea that, as Kennedy writes, “social change should come about primarily through education and the appeal to people’s enlightened, better selves” (Kennedy 47). Hart and Lovejoy’s language has deep parallels to Kennedy’s when the former pair writes about “informing the understanding [and] … awakening the moral vision and the moral passion, of the entire people” (Hart 3).
Rule Number 3 is that every speech should have, aside from a central argument, a theme following through the whole. This short essay’s theme is patriotism. By constantly evoking the need to appeal to “citizens of the Republic,” “every honest and loyal citizen,” “all Americans deserving of the name,” etc., the editors suggest the pressing nature of this issue for the American psyche (Hart 3-4). The U.S., Hart and Lovejoy suggest, has been “forced” to enter the war on the part of all mankind due to its status as an upholder of justice and human rights. The strong appeal to American values such as freedom and justice calls to mind present-day accusations that those who kneel during the national anthem are not “true patriots” and do not show proper support for the U.S. military. Patriotism, it seems, has always lent itself well to militant causes.
By following these rules, the Handbook provides in its introduction an example to help guide its readers when they eventually speak to their own audiences.
The meta-ness of your forensic dissertation on the forensic league-esque framing of the speech handbook is dizzying! It’s worth noting, too, who these two characters were, Hart and Lovejoy. They were the leading “lights” in U.S. history at the time — yes, academic historians playing a national service. What could be more “progressive!” Hart and Lovejoy’s involvement supports your point about the role of education and “enlightened” persuasion. Lovejoy literally invented intellectual history.