Why Hakeem Jeffries’ A to Z speech works so well

Minority Leader of the U.S House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries delivered his first speech as leader of the Democratic conference earlier this week. Near the end of the speech, he offered a series of alphabetic comparisons between his Democratic conference and that of the Republicans.

Normally I’d say that a contrived bit of wordplay like this is a bad idea. Hokey and too clever by half. Impossible to do well.

But I have to say:

It was brilliant. For three reasons:

1. The list works. There isn’t a single alphabetic comparison that feels forced. Admittedly, I’m not sure how many people know the definition of the word “xenial,” but I do, and I suspect that, given the context, you do, too.

“We’ll always put American values over autocracy, benevolence over bigotry, the constitution over the cult, democracy over demagogues, economic opportunity over extremism, freedom over fascism.”

“Governing over gaslighting, hopefulness over hatred, inclusion over isolation, justice over judicial overreach, knowledge over kangaroo courts, liberty over limitation, maturity over Mar-a-Lago, normalcy over negativity, opportunity over obstruction, people over politics, quality of life issues over Qanon.”

“Reason over racism, substance over slander, triumph over tyranny, understanding over ugliness, voting rights over voter suppression, working families over the well-connected, xenial over xenophobia, yes we can over you can’t do it and zealous representation over zero sum confrontation.”

A couple of my favorites from the list:

• Constitution over the cult, which is perhaps the most powerful of the comparisons and makes the differences between the two parties abundantly clear.
• Quality of life issues over Q’anon, which highlights a real problem with certain members of the Republican conference, who openly espouse a belief in Q’anon conspiracies to parts of the American public who agree with them while simultaneously concealing those beliefs from the majority of their constituents who consider those beliefs ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid. Hanging this conspiracy theory on the Republican party (and rightfully so) is a powerful rhetorical tool.
• Maturity over Mar-a-Lago, which are three simple, biting words that say so much more but also come across as surprisingly amusing, too.

2. The list is surprising. When you first hear the speech, you don’t realize that you’re about to receive an alphabetic list of comparisons. By the time Jeffries gets to C or D or E, most people have realized what is happening, but that moment of realization, when you figure out the trick of the speech, is supremely satisfying for an audience, similar to solving an Agatha Christie mystery just before Miss Marple does. Dopamine is released in the brain at that moment, filling you with good feelings but still leaving you with a certain degree of suspense:

Is he really going through the whole alphabet?
What the hell is he going to use for Q? And X? And Z?
Is this really going to work?

That suspense is a powerful tool, too, holding the audience’s attention and achieving maximum focus on the words being spoken.

The construction of the speech is brilliant in this regard.

3. The list represents contrast in its most basic form, and contrast is the most powerful way in the world to define a concept, illustrate an idea, or make a point. Nothing is better. Compare two things that are dissimilar or in opposition to each other, and both things are brought to stark, powerful clarity.

It’s storytelling at its finest.

Jeffries also delivers the speech brilliantly, increasing his pace throughout, building momentum and excitement with each word.

Naturally, Republicans referred to Jeffries’ alphabetic list as a stunt and attempted to characterize it as childish and silly, but two things about that:

When your opposition feels the need to attack your words rather than ignoring them, they view those words as potentially damaging to their cause. Republicans’ attempts to undermine the speech only serve to highlight the power and effectiveness that they see in the speech.

The speech has been viewed well over 25 million times on various platforms across the internet, which qualifies it as a viral hit. More than 6% of Americans have already viewed it online.

Nearly 10% of adult Americans.

By contrast (because contrast is so powerful), Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy also delivered his first speech as Speaker of the House that day. His speech has been viewed tens of thousands of times online – a tiny fraction of the number that Jefferies’ speech has been viewed – which also explains the Republican’s attempt to denigrate Jeffries’ speech.

In fact, the C-SPAN video of McCarthy’s encounter with Congressman Matt Gaetz during the vote for Speaker of the House (and the physical manhandling of a Republican lawmaker by members of his own party) received exponentially more views than McCarthy’s speech.

You never want to lose to your own public temper tantrum.

Numbers don’t lie. Eyeballs matter. Politicians want to be heard, and rightfully so. The person who has the most views objectively delivered the more impactful speech.

In this case, the contest wasn’t even close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-7O5Fkie64