The America-First Case for Ukraine

What the rest of us can learn from Zelensky's speech

Last night, with the fate of his country on the line, Vladimir Zelensky addressed the United States Congress. I was at the grocery store. He has a war to win, I have a baking project to undertake, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Besides, that’s the nature of most major speeches these days - not just ones that take place a few days before Christmas. As “primetime” splinters into a thousand on- and offline segments, prepared remarks are less like the Super Bowl and more like the Olympics. Most of us will catch the highlights, we’ll form a general picture of what’s going on, but we won’t see it play out start to finish.

But this morning I read the transcript of Zelensky’s speech, since I still take a professional interest in these sorts of things. What struck me is that, with the stakes high and time short, he’s doing things - perhaps out of necessity - that those of us with the luxury of living in a country where you can go to the grocery store while the bloody fight for international stability takes place a continent away, cannot.

Here are a few sections that stood out, and why I thought they mattered from a speechwriting analysis (tm) perspective:

I. “We do not judge and compare whose life is easier. Your well-being is the product of your national security; the result of your struggle for independence and your many victories.”

Why this is smart: It is, of course, debatable whether America’s affluence and position in the world is purely merit-based. Americans debate it all the time. And a lot of Americans (let’s be honest, a lot of Democrats) would be uncomfortable making a statement like this one without adding a ton of caveats.

But most people believe they deserve what they have. That’s especially true of the kinds of people who might cast the deciding votes on future Ukrainian aid. So rather than engage in a debate that’s not relevant to his cause, Zelensky reaffirms what his audience already believes. It costs him nothing, and builds goodwill for the parts of his speech that are more challenging.

(There’s an old cliche about telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. That’s an oversimplification. Don’t lie to people. But if you can tell someone something they want to hear, they’re more likely to be receptive to something they need to hear.)

Zelensky goes one step further here - not just making audience members feel good about themselves, but doing so in a way that links them to Ukraine and it’s current struggle for independence and self-determination.

II. “Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.”

Why this is smart: In the run-up to the speech, Marjorie Taylor Green, Donald Trump Jr, and a host of online Elon/Tucker/crypto fans who totally coincidentally happen to be Putin fans were making what, on its face, was a pretty compelling argument: Why spend $47 billion on Ukraine when families are struggling to pay bills at home.

Some people (let’s be honest, some Democrats) might have countered that argument by pushing back on the premise, some version of: “These people are fighting for their lives, and you’re worried about buying an extra Christmas present? How selfish can you get?”

In his speech, Zelensky went the opposite way. He concedes, and in fact fully agrees with, the idea that American policy should exist to benefit American citizens. America First.

As Coach Samuelson used to say back when I was a totally adequate high school wrestler, “Take ‘em the way they want to go.”

By making an appeal to his audiences’ self-interest Zelensky catches critics off-balance. Now it’s MTG/Trump Jr/Elon fans who have a tough sell to make. Rather than arguing over, “Should America give away taxpayer dollars to worthy causes?” We’re debating, “Is letting Putin conquer Ukraine in America’s best interest?” That’s a tough argument for MTG/Trump Jr./Elon-crypto-coincidentally-Putin-fans to win.

III. “We have artillery, yes. Thank you. We have it. Is it enough? Honestly, not really.”

Why this is smart: Something I learned early on after starting at the White House is that, as much as possible, you shouldn’t use the word “but” in speeches. It’s harsh. It tells people they’re wrong in the most blunt possible way - and people don’t like being told they’re wrong in the most blunt possible way. “But” sends the audience off a cliff.

What Zelensky does here is the opposite of that. He wants more weapons. Lots of people in the audience have concerns about giving him more weapons. So he starts with some appreciation.

Then he picks the question he wants his audience to be asking themselves in their heads. He could have gone with, “Are we satisfied?” or “Do we want more?” But he chooses carefully. He frames that debate not around d emotions or feelings, but around the facts on the ground. He isn’t saying, “You haven’t done enough,” (although that’s probably what he believes), instead he says, “The artillery we currently have isn’t enough.” Very different.

And then finally, he makes his point in a firm but delicate way. “Honestly” is often a verbal tic. If he was writing an op-ed, his editor would cut it. But here, he’s giving his audience a second to pause, soften, prepare itself to be ever so slightly challenged. And then, if anything, he lets them down easy. “Not really.”

He’s not being disingenuous. But he’s being diplomatic. He’s giving the maximum number of people audience permission to agree with him. That’s a very smart way to ask people for stuff.

So to recap: Find ways to make your audience members feel good about themselves; appeal to their self-interest; challenge them without sending them over a cliff.

These three ideas aren’t easy to put into practice. But they’ll be very helpful the next time you’re saving your country from a better-armed, better-funded, genocidal aggressor. Or at the grocery store.

P.S. One bonus point. In the speech, Zelensky’s pean to Christmas was very well-crafted. Irving Berlin would be proud.