IntroductionEver since the inception of hierarchical societies, and the adoption of, even a partially, democratic system of leadership, the most prominent means of communication by potential leaders has been speeches. Speeches are popular – even today – due to their effectiveness when it comes to conveying subliminal cues via body language, facial expressions, linguistics and lexuses, as additions to enhance any political messages that one would want to deliver. These cues are integral in forming a more personal connection with an audience when one must address a group as vast and diverse as a nation; they are means through which one can make their audience aware of who one is as a person, and thus give hints about what issues they will address during their reign as a head of state. To provide an accessible example, if you were someone who had liberal ideals, a more delicate mode of delivery would resonate with you. MethodologyThe heads of state I chose to research were Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. I chose them because both their campaigns started in 2015, thus the global economy would have been affecting both the United States of America’s and Canada’s populations in the same manner; neither of them were repeating a term, and geographical proximity meant that both countries had somewhat similar value systems. All of these reasons imply that the audiences to whom both leaders had to appeal to were similar, and ensuring this was key so that the major extraneous variables that go into voting are nullified. Lastly, I also chose these leaders because of a major distinction between them: while Mr Trudeau was previously affiliated with Canadian politics before his campaign to become Prime Minister, Mr Trump was a businessman who was new to the political world. Hence, by looking into these particular gentlemen, I will be able to compare a novice political speaker’s (Mr Trump’s) speeches to those delivered by someone with experience in this field (Mr Trudeau).During my primary research, I have analysed four speeches: one that each head of state delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2017, and one that each current head of state used to launch their campaign in 2015. I chose these speeches after much deliberation. Although there is a plethora of videos available from events they have spoken at, choosing these two main events – a campaign launch and a General Assembly address – allow me to compare differences in their speeches when they give an oration to two very different audiences. The campaign launch is an event that gives me an insight into how they delivered speeches such that they could appeal to the whole nation, their first impression before an election, whereas the United Nations speech is delivered to a group of dignitaries, people whom they must be explicitly respectful towards as a sign of international courtesy. Looking at different speeches where one is delivered two years after the other will also allow me to gauge their growth as speakers as they become more experiences in the political system.The analysis conducted is twofold as I am not only looking to breakdown the literary techniques they use, but also the physical delivery of the speeches. Hence, a few examples of categories are the vocabulary used, the persuasive techniques – such as emotive language, rule of three, metaphors, analogies, personal pronouns, and methods of identification – and also how each leader emphasises their message through facial expressions and body language; I will also analyse their tone and pitch of delivery.Donald J. Trump’s Campaign Launch Speech AnalysisThe first speech I watched was Donald Trump’s campaign announcement speech. After being invited to the stage at Trump Tower by his daughter, Ivanka Trump, he walked onto the stage and announced his pleasure at the magnitude of the crowd. He began casually and was consistently informal throughout the 47 minutes for which the speech lasted. His facial expressions lacked diplomacy, although his posture and hand gestures were what is expected of a politician.Trump’s physical cues during the speech matched the content he spoke. Using a colloquial vocabulary, Trump’s unchecked facial expressions made it seem like he was having a conversation with the audience, rather than delivering a speech. He made no effort to conceal his displeasure at situations and graced the audience with a stern frown when required (Fig. 1). To balance this, he did smirk when the audience chanted his name, or when someone randomly shouted “We want Trump” (Fig. 2). Perhaps, he used his expressions as a means of creating a personal connection with the audience, as opposed to establishing himself as the ordinary politician. By doing so, he was already creating his unique selling point: he was the people’s representative. This is quite clever for Trump. Being in the 1% himself, yet having an audience of middle and working class white Americans, making himself seem approachable was an intelligent political tactic to connect with his target audience. Another observation I made was that although the range of emotions he showed using his facial expressions was vast, and the frequency of these variations was numerous, for the majority of the first 10-13 minutes, he did maintain a neutral look. This could show that his expressions were a sign of true anger and frustration, and added a passionate streak to his delivery. This was a way to compound a very negative speech, and could be seen as a means to voice the people’s angst at America’s political situation then. By doing so, he strengthened the connection he had created as he was implying that the people’s problems were his, too.During his speech, Trump used his hands, neck and posture to connote certain characteristics of his. In the very beginning, when he was thanking the crowd for coming to the event, he made sure to look up at the audience seated on the balconies, and made eye contact with several people (Fig. 3). By doing so, he immediately made audience members feel welcome and valued; this makes him likeable as a person, and thus his first meeting with his audience, in this context, was positive. Another thing that helped with this was his posture. Through the entirety of the speech, he kept his back straight and stood tall. This gives an impression of knowledge and elicits trust, in an addressee, in a speaker’s words. Moving onto this idea of acting as the people’s mouthpiece, his exasperation with the current state of politics was abundantly evident through his hand gestures. For example, when talking about how the number of HMMWVs left behind in Iraq, by America, was 2300, he had a look of utter confoundment and anger on his face (Fig. 4). In another instance, when he was criticising the negotiating capabilities of Barack H. Obama, he shrugged at how despite having the same type of people in each of their teams, the deals Obama made were connotative of “losing to China” (Fig. 5). Such exaggerated movements instill a faith amongst the audience, in his words, as it seems like he is so moved by his words that he needs to express that anguish with every fibre in his being. It shows that he believes in what he is saying, which leads people to want to believe his words as well. Finally, there was one moment in his speech that I felt he used very well to not only show vehemence but also power was when he said “great spirit” and drove his fist in the air (Fig. 6). Although said in a slightly impertinent context, the way in which he delivers this phrase is quite impactful.Looking at the mise-en-scene in the video, Trump stood behind a podium with a background of two Star-spangled Banners and a blue curtain; Trump was wearing a midnight blue blazer with a red tie, and white shirt (Fig. 7). The scene, as a whole, where Trump matched the background, and seemed to merge with the flags, gave an impression that he was an extension of the United States of America. The perfect synchronicity of the colour palettes had an aesthetically pleasing effect, and was well set up.