Kamala Harris justified the Democrats’ newfound enthusiasm with a strong acceptance speech (file).

The recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago was a parade of impressive speeches. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris justified the Democrats’ newfound enthusiasm with a convincing acceptance speech, but even she could not match the oratorical power of Michelle Obama and Barack Obama two nights earlier.

The political culture of the United States is characterized by visionary speeches, from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” and Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall.” This rhetorical tradition shapes events such as party conventions, where memorable speeches can lay the foundation for a president’s career.

Australia has also produced some justifiably famous political speeches. There is Robert Menzies’ 1942 “Forgotten People” speech, Paul Keating’s 1992 Redfern speech and Julia Gillard’s 2012 “misogyny speech” to Parliament. Noel Pearson’s 2014 eulogy for Gough Whitlam was a rhetorical masterpiece.

But these speeches are remembered because they are so rare. Australian politicians have to be good communicators, but they are not expected to use the kind of high-flown, visionary rhetoric we see so often in the US. Why is that?

Politics with the soul of a church.

Party conventions in the US often resemble award ceremonies in Hollywood, and Steven Spielberg was involved in planning the most recent convention. Hollywood has become an indelible part of US political culture.

Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, set new standards for how telegenic and entertaining presidents could be. Donald Trump may not be everyone’s idea of ​​a great speaker, but the former reality TV star is certainly a master of televised spectacle.

The tradition of preaching is an even deeper cultural source of political rhetoric in the United States. With about 30% of Americans regularly attending religious services, preaching is the most common form of public speaking in the United States.

Given the level of religious competition, American preachers must be persuasive, and many future politicians are first introduced to the art of public speaking in church. American political speeches often reflect the combination of edification and warning found in sermons.

While evangelical Christianity is usually associated with the Republican Party, it is also embedded in the Democrats’ DNA because of the civil rights movement and the black church. One of the DNC’s standout speakers was Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, pastor of the same Atlanta Baptist church where Martin Luther King Jr. preached.

Warnock used biblical terms to describe Trump as a “plague on the American conscience,” but also described Trump’s voice as “a kind of prayer for the world we want for ourselves and our children.”

In Australia, there is no shortage of politicians who were raised Christian and who hold Christian beliefs. But unlike in the United States, where even secular politicians must pay lip service to prayer, Christian politicians in Australia must adapt to the secularism of Australian culture. This culture does not expect politicians to preach.

Strong speeches for weak parties

Michelle Grattan described Australia’s party conferences last week as “mind-numbing” compared to the “Hollywood spectacles” of their US counterparts.

But the spectacles of the US party conventions are testament to the weakness of the American parties. The Democratic and Republican national committees have little power. The party organisations are local and fragmented. They lack the central authority found in the Australian parties, and the national convention, which takes place every four years, is the only occasion when a national party really comes into being.

Even in Congress, parties have few mechanisms to discipline their members. Party leaders are forced to negotiate with their own side, which is not always successful. At party conventions, the unity behind a newly nominated candidate is flamboyantly displayed. This is one of the few moments when party unity is guaranteed.

Although there is a great deal of power struggle within Australian parties, in Australia it mostly takes place behind closed doors within the party hierarchy. In the US, aspiring politicians must campaign publicly to win the often brutal primaries that will earn them the party nomination.

Successful candidates must develop their own personal campaigns. They get help from local party organizations that coordinate resources and volunteers, but they need much more than that. A candidate for national office must build his own coalition of donors that dwarfs anything a party could provide.

That’s why it’s important to deliver good speeches. Competition for the attention of donors and voters is fierce, and a compelling speech is a critical way to stand out. This is especially true for candidates like Barack Obama, who came from outside the party’s traditional centers of power.

In Australia, inspirational speeches do not have the same political value. A system of strict party discipline, small primaries and short, relatively cheap campaigns means that candidates are more heavily rewarded for other political skills.

The Australian Advantage: Debating

While a US politician might be able to deliver a more entertaining campaign speech than an Australian politician, an Australian politician would probably do better in any situation that requires off-the-cuff commentary – especially in a debate with an opponent.

Even excellent political speakers in the United States can be disappointing if they don’t have a script and a receptive audience. Debates in Congress consist of prepared speeches with little direct exchange between opponents. There is no equivalent of parliamentary question time, and officeholders (such as the president or state governors) are not even members of the legislature.

While congressional committee hearings can sometimes simulate the chaos we associate with Question Time, the structure of Congress is not as conducive to debate.

The physical form of Westminster parliaments, with opponents facing each other head-on, testifies to a confrontational nature that has been present from the start. The power of Gillard’s “misogynistic” speech, which went viral around the world, came in part from the way she delivered it right to Tony Abbott’s face.

The US Congress was designed differently. The framers of the Constitution abhorred the idea of ​​factions and envisioned a legislature made up of representatives negotiating with each other to reach consensus. Congress, in turn, would have to negotiate with the president, who would rarely have to confront his representatives publicly.

This may explain why, despite the regularly brilliant speeches at party conventions, the US presidential debates are so boring and forgettable. Commentators who try to spice up these debates by citing “great moments” from past debates inevitably fall back on the same old line: “You’re no Jack Kennedy,” uttered by forgotten vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.

The sad reality is that the most memorable and consequential presidential debate in living memory is the one we just witnessed. Joe Biden performed so poorly that it dashed his hopes of a second presidency.

In the land of screenplays, the teleprompter is king.

David Smith, Associate Professor of American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)