President's 2011 SOTU speech was written at more than a half a grade level lower than 2010's score, which was the 4th lowest in 75+ years
Although praised by many for the tone he struck in delivering his 2011 State of the Union address, many conservatives criticized Barack Obama's speech for being high on rhetoric and short on substance.As it turns out, Obama's speech was historically short - both in sentence structure and the words he used.
Last year, Smart Politics calculated that Obama's debut State of the Union Address tallied one of the lowest Flesch-Kincaid scores in modern political history, by constructing his speech with sentences that were approximately 20 percent shorter in length than the nearly 70 oral addresses given since Franklin Roosevelt.
The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores.
But Tuesday evening's address beat even that.
A Smart Politics analysis of 69 orally delivered State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama's speech to have notched the second lowest score on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test recorded by a U.S. President.
Obama's speech had a Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of just 8.1 - which is a half a grade lower than the 8.8 he tallied in 2010.
Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 69 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt.
Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (by Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956).
Prior to FDR, the vast majority of State of the Union speeches were delivered in writing.
President Obama now has the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president - with his 8.5 grade level falling just below the 8.6 score recorded by George H.W. Bush during his presidency.
By contrast - the speeches delivered by two of the most popular presidents in Republican circles in recent generations - Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush - recorded average scores of 10.3 and 10.4 respectively - nearly two full grade levels higher than Obama.
Kennedy (12.0) and Eisenhower (11.9) delivered speeches that had a reading difficulty of three and a half grade levels higher than Obama.
Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for Orally Delivered State of the Union Addresses by Presidents Since FDR
Rank | President | Words per sentence | Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level |
1 | Kennedy | 23.8 | 12.0 |
2 | Eisenhower | 20.5 | 11.9 |
3 | Nixon | 23.5 | 11.5 |
4 | Roosevelt | 24.3 | 11.4 |
5 | Ford | 19.3 | 11.2 |
6 | Carter | 19.7 | 10.8 |
7 | Truman | 18.9 | 10.5 |
8 | Johnson | 20.3 | 10.4 |
8 | Bush 43 | 19.0 | 10.4 |
10 | Reagan | 19.6 | 10.3 |
11 | Clinton | 19.0 | 9.5 |
12 | Bush 41 | 17.4 | 8.6 |
13 | Obama | 16.7 | 8.5 |
An observer of Obama's speech this week can certainly understand why his readability grade level was so low.
The President intentionally infused his speech with several succinct sentences, with short words, that were probably meant to be taglines of the address - or at least applause lines.
For example, near the end of his speech, Obama repeated the following phrase on multiple occasions to illustrate the American dream: "We do big things."
Obama's speech averaged just 16.8 words per sentence, which is the fifth lowest since 1934.
Only State of the Union addresses by George H.W. Bush in 1992 (15.8 words per sentence), Lyndon Johnson in 1965 (16.1), Harry Truman in 1951 (16.3), and Obama himself in 2010 (16.6) scored lower.
The president peppered short phrases throughout his speech, such as in his plea for bi-partisanship in the opening minutes:
"I believe we can. I believe we must....That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together."
As well as during his comments on the economy and the need for technological innovation:
"That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful...They're right. The rules have changed....So yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real...The future is ours to win...Now it's our turn."
Of course, the downside of relying on these shorter catchphrases (e.g. "This is our generation's Sputnik moment.") means there is a tradeoff with more fully explaining the details of the policies being advocated in the speech.
As such, one of the criticisms levied at the president by some conservatives was that all of Obama's talk of "investment" and "innovation" in areas such as education and technology stopped short of explaining how the federal government was go to pay for it.
Instead, the President frequently offered rallying a cry, rather than a substantive plan, such as this part of the speech on transportation investments:
"We have to do better...Tonight I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts."
Or on taxes:
"Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field."
Although he is the owner of two of the lowest Flesch-Kincaid scores in history, this does not mean Obama delivered ineffective speeches per se.
As the attention span of Americans seems to get shorter and shorter each year, perhaps this less professorial approach to speechwriting is necessary to hold viewers and, perhaps, increase if not support for his policies, at least his short-term approval ratings.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for Orally Delivered State of the Union Addresses, 1934-2011
President | Words per sentence | Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level |
Truman 1947 | 20.1 | 12.0 |
Roosevelt 1940 | 26.3 | 12.0 |
Roosevelt 1938 | 27.0 | 12.0 |
Roosevelt 1937 | 26.1 | 12.0 |
Roosevelt 1935 | 25.5 | 12.0 |
Roosevelt 1934 | 30.3 | 12.0 |
Nixon 1974 | 25.5 | 12.0 |
Kennedy 1963 | 23.8 | 12.0 |
Kennedy 1962 | 23.1 | 12.0 |
Kennedy 1961 | 24.4 | 12.0 |
Eisenhower 1960 | 21.7 | 12.0 |
Eisenhower 1957 | 21.4 | 12.0 |
Eisenhower 1955 | 21.1 | 12.0 |
Eisenhower 1954 | 20.6 | 12.0 |
Eisenhower 1953 | 19.9 | 12.0 |
Ford 1977 | 21.8 | 11.9 |
Bush 2005 | 21.6 | 11.8 |
Roosevelt 1939 | 22.2 | 11.7 |
Eisenhower 1958 | 19.9 | 11.7 |
Truman 1950 | 21.9 | 11.6 |
Nixon 1971 | 23.3 | 11.6 |
Johnson 1964 | 24.1 | 11.6 |
Eisenhower 1959 | 18.9 | 11.4 |
Reagan 1983 | 21.2 | 11.3 |
Roosevelt 1936 | 23.0 | 11.2 |
Carter 1980 | 20.7 | 11.2 |
Carter 1979 | 20.2 | 11.2 |
Roosevelt 1941 | 22.2 | 11.1 |
Nixon 1972 | 22.9 | 11.1 |
Nixon 1970 | 22.3 | 11.1 |
Roosevelt 1944 | 21.5 | 11.0 |
Reagan 1988 | 21.6 | 11.0 |
Ford 1975 | 18.3 | 11.0 |
Truman 1949 | 18.3 | 10.9 |
Roosevelt 1943 | 22.8 | 10.9 |
Reagan 1982 | 20.5 | 10.9 |
Johnson 1966 | 21.5 | 10.8 |
Bush 2006 | 19.2 | 10.8 |
Truman 1948 | 18.4 | 10.7 |
Johnson 1969 | 21.2 | 10.7 |
Ford 1976 | 17.9 | 10.7 |
Johnson 1967 | 19.9 | 10.4 |
Bush 2003 | 18.2 | 10.4 |
Johnson 1968 | 18.9 | 10.3 |
Bush 2008 | 18.4 | 10.2 |
Bush 2004 | 18.8 | 10.2 |
Clinton 1999 | 19.1 | 10.0 |
Carter 1978 | 18.2 | 9.9 |
Reagan 1987 | 18.6 | 9.8 |
Reagan 1986 | 19.8 | 9.8 |
Bush 2007 | 19.3 | 9.8 |
Reagan 1985 | 18.6 | 9.7 |
Clinton 1998 | 19.7 | 9.7 |
Roosevelt 1942 | 20.4 | 9.6 |
Clinton 1997 | 19.5 | 9.6 |
Reagan 1984 | 16.9 | 9.3 |
Clinton 2000 | 18.3 | 9.3 |
Clinton 1996 | 17.7 | 9.3 |
Clinton 1995 | 20.0 | 9.3 |
Bush 2002 | 17.8 | 9.3 |
Bush 1991 | 17.4 | 9.2 |
Clinton 1994 | 18.6 | 9.0 |
Bush 1990 | 18.9 | 9.0 |
Truman 1952 | 18.1 | 8.9 |
Obama 2010 | 16.6 | 8.8 |
Truman 1951 | 16.3 | 8.6 |
Johnson 1965 | 16.1 | 8.6 |
Obama 2011 | 16.8 | 8.1 |
Bush 1992 | 15.8 | 7.5 |
Average | 20.6 | 10.7 |
Comments
This is a really informative analysis -- and it provides additional evidence for Obama's ability to connect effectively via his rhetoric with a wide range of Americans. The indictment some have offered that Obama does not provide enough policy detail in the address suggests a rhetorical dilemma: if Obama were to laden the speech (already touching on a wide expanse of issues) with more concrete policy specifics, how long would the speech run? How much more complicated would it get? Could a 21st century televisual political audience process such a speech effectively?The continuing (and disparaging) description of Obama as overly "professorial" and "intellectual rather than emotional" from critics on the right is rather perplexing -- unless one considers the possibilities that (a) some on the right may be jealous that there hasn't been a truly eloquent GOP president in office since Reagan, and a GOP president both eloquent and possessing a clearly keen intellect since...???; (b) the fact that Obama is African American, but possesses superior rhetorical skills and intellect, might very well not be a comfortable reality for many on the right...
This is a really informative analysis -- and it provides additional evidence for Obama's ability to connect effectively via his rhetoric with a wide range of Americans. The indictment some have offered that Obama does not provide enough policy detail in the address suggests a rhetorical dilemma: if Obama were to laden the speech (already touching on a wide expanse of issues) with more concrete policy specifics, how long would the speech run? How much more complicated would it get? Could a 21st century televisual political audience process such a speech effectively?
The continuing (and disparaging) description of Obama as overly "professorial" and "intellectual rather than emotional" from critics on the right is rather perplexing -- unless one considers the possibilities that (a) some on the right may be jealous that there hasn't been a truly eloquent GOP president in office since Reagan, and a GOP president both eloquent and possessing a clearly keen intellect since...???; (b) the fact that Obama is African American, but possesses superior rhetorical skills and intellect, might very well not be a comfortable reality for many on the right...
