How to Speak to an Audience that Doesn’t Really Like You
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu shows us that it’s possible to succeed—even in front of an adversarial crowd.
It’s the middle of the night and you’ve jolted awake in a sweat. Moments ago you were on stage, stammering through a speech. You glanced down to realize — you know what’s coming — you’re buck naked.
We speechwriters always assure our clients that this nightmare is but a dream. Not only will you be clothed when you speak, but likely standing before interested and engaged listeners. Whether it’s your colleagues, professional peers, or beloved family members at a wedding party, you can usually count on your audience to root for you.
Usually.
Every once in a while, speakers are tasked with connecting to an adversarial audience. An audience that — before you even open your mouth — disagrees with you, disapproves of you, maybe even despises you.
The likelihood of facing such a crowd is increasing: Following the 2024 election, nearly half of the American electorate reported thinking that members of the opposing party were “downright evil.”
If you haven’t felt such venom at your Thanksgiving dinner table, you’ve seen it in Congress. Representatives and Senators have been caught hurling personal insults and even fists in Capitol chambers.
But vitriol between speaker and listener need not render a speaking opportunity doomed. Any speech can be an effective one, even when the audience has tomatoes at the ready. I confirmed as much by watching the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s hearing on sanctuary city policies — all six hours of it. (Okay, okay, there were a few recesses.)
On March 5, 2025, representatives and four mayors from major American cities filed into a mahogany-paneled hearing room, suits pressed, pins glistening. At the top of the chamber, framed by two American flags, sat Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.). He eyed the roster of mayors with pure disdain before launching into an opening statement riddled with superlatives and character attacks. He concluded with his party’s central argument: “Sanctuary cities make us all less safe.”
Over the next hours, the mayors faced a barrage of questions. Amidst the testimonies, one mayor rose above the rest. Arriving with her one-month-old infant in her arms and an Ash Wednesday cross on her forehead, she offered a stark contrast to the suited men beside her. And from the artful storytelling embedded in her opening statement to her clear, concise responses to the representatives’ abrasive questions, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu demonstrated that it’s possible to succeed before an adversarial audience — and offered three strategies that all speakers can borrow.
Lesson #1: Focus on the minds you can change
As you prepare for the boxing ring — I mean, the stage — it is tempting to cater exclusively to your supporters or hurl insults at your opponents. But there is a third option: speak to the silent sympathizers.
In the very first line of her opening statement, Mayor Wu previewed that she would be using the hearing to do more than defend herself. “I am grateful,” she said, “for this opportunity to share with our federal partners the work that we have done on the local level to make Boston the safest major city in America.”
She rightly identified the panel as not just a professional obligation, but an opportunity: a moment to lay out her vision for her city on her own terms, rather than letting Congress define the narrative.
She proceeded to enumerate her legislative successes, including job growth and new investments in education initiatives and affordable housing. She cited statistics showcasing Boston’s record-low crime rates and described the city’s innovative public safety initiatives.
Later, in “the most viral moment from the hearing,” as one reporter labeled it, she turned the tables against her questioners, challenging them to “pass gun reforms. Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our city safe.”
Of course, it’s unlikely she changed the minds of any of the staunch conservatives in the room. But Wu trusted that someone, somewhere — maybe an idle staffer in the hallway, maybe a student watching via livestream — would listen to her rendition of Boston’s story. Rather than accepting the inherent combative quality of the meeting, she broadened her lens — and spoke to those she knew she might sway.
Lesson #2: Don’t be afraid to play the game
After the mayors’ opening statements, the real questioning began.
A trend emerged: Representatives from across the aisle repeatedly asked the mayors “yes or no” questions. The strategy catered to a world dominated by social media: each question teed up a short, easily capturable scene of the sanctuary city mayor’s response. If the mayors failed to respond quickly to these “simple” questions, the representatives could say, “see? They can’t even answer this softball.”
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) deployed this tactic in one of the most vitriolic exchanges of the hearing. “You all have blood on your hands,” she said. “Do you believe breaking into our country is a crime? Yes or no?”
The first three mayors did not immediately provide a “yes” or “no” answer; they instead attempted wordy, nuanced responses, which Mace immediately cut off.
Mayor Wu responded directly: “yes.”
Mace continued: “Do you believe ICE arresting a child rapist threatens everyone’s safety?” Again, Wu responded simply: “No.”
Mace, again: “Does ICE arresting a murderous MS-13 gang member threaten everyone’s safety? Yes or no?” Wu, again: “No.”
This wasn’t a concession. It was a refusal to fall for Mace’s trap. Wu trusted that, with her thorough preparation, artful opening statement, and detailed policy explanations, she would, by the end of her six hours in Congress, convey the full scope of nuance and complexity that Mace’s questions sought to erase.
When you sense a gotcha question like Mace’s, follow Wu’s lead: stick to short, honest answers to move past set-ups and on to substance.
Lesson #3: Don’t overcomplicate it
In the age of splicing and dicing, rhetorical gymnastics to basic questions rarely stick the landing. Talking points should look like bullet points: easy to say, easy to understand, and easy to remember — for yourself, and more importantly, your audience.
Wu’s testimony was, by and large, comprised of simple sentences — ones that require little context:
“Boston is a safe city.”
“A city that is scared is not a city that is safe.”
“We need comprehensive immigration reform.”
“We follow the law.”
To drive these lines home, she repeated them throughout the hearing. To back them up, she offered statistics on the demographics, crime rates, and economic growth of her city; a historical overview of Boston’s immigrant community; and — most of all — a steadfast confidence in her legislative choices and know-how.
Wu ensured each and every member of the audience left with a crystal clear understanding of her position — the speechwriter’s gold standard.
All three messaging lessons culminate in a larger philosophical one: Mayor Wu showed integrity. In the face of an adversarial audience, she told a story her constituents were proud of — because it conveyed her love for, and commitment to, them.
So the next time your listeners look at you with spite or malice, remember the qualities Wu so admirably showcased — devotion, compassion, conviction — to ensure your message breaks through, no tomatoes wasted.
– Grace Scullion (WWW intern)
In “Orations Worth Ovations,” professional speechwriters analyze great speeches (real or fictional, historic or personal) and explain what makes them so good.
Follow West Wing Writers on LinkedIn.
