☆ The Promoter and the Professor: Ellenberg's and Mahan's differing rhetorical strategies
The Opp Now team recalls those English 10 days and offers a close read of the vastly divergent language, arguments, and tone in county Supe Prez Ellenberg's and SJ Mayor Mahan's kickoff speeches—and wonder if they point to different governing styles. An Opp Now exclusive.
It was a tale of two speeches. Ellenberg's launch oration was an emotional, audience-participation call to join a Social Justice movement expressing itself through county government programs, while Mahan's was a more critical examination of the issues facing the City and how to accountably fix them. Here are the three big examples of the rhetorical divides between the two.
I. On embracing criticism—or not.
Mahan is not afraid to be critical of past city and county policies. A running refrain through his speech is the need to be clear-eyed about past missteps: "We must acknowledge what isn't working," he says. "We need to pay attention to what isn't working as (much as) what is." "We must not lose sight" of objectives and missteps.
By way of counterpoint, Ellenberg doesn't acknowledge critiques of county policies—rather, she deflects them. "The challenges [homelessness, mental health, safety, etc.] we have are not unique to SCC," she says. To Ellenberg, it's the critics of County policies who bear responsibility for problems: "Finger-pointing and excuses will only explode trust," she says. "The politics of division are not going to work. In fact, they are a substantial factor in not meeting the challenges we face."
II. On demanding allegiance—or asking for action.
The most surprising part of Ellenberg's speech is when she calls out each supervisor—by name—in front of the audience, and exhorts their public allegiance by asking them, one by one: "Are you with me?" This convention—requesting statements of public allegiance to the team or its leader—is often used by membership organizations to secure commitment from followers. Ellenberg pursues the technique even further in her close, when she exhorts listeners to "Join the organization [county gov't] that I would argue does more good for the residents of SCC than any other single entity." "We must invest in what's needed, and do so in lock-step with each other," she says. Ellenberg then links the county's work to efforts to alleviate injustice in the world.
Mahan, on the other hand, takes a more modest approach, and requests his audience to be agents of action. To Mahan, that's a two-step process: focusing tightly on a few basic objectives and working towards them accountably. "When we are focused, we are more innovative," he says. "We need to act boldly now." "We can't wait" needlessly long periods for homelessness solutions. He also offers a more circumscribed view of the government's role: "The truth is that there are needs and desires in our community that far outstrip the capacity of City Hall."
III. On change vs. status quo.
Mahan speech is infused with the language of change. "We need to disrupt," he says, outlining specific policies for police, homelessness, and city staffing. The speech is peppered with calls to "unlock" potential, to "turn words in action," how we need "creative new strategies."
Ellenberg's speech is a defense of county gov’t status quo, and a call to double down on existing policies. Her speech is fundamentally a list of perceived successes, and an exhortation to "continue the work”—not to change course.
Read Mahan's speech here.
Read Ellenberg's speech here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Duke University Archives