As you read this, the world is likely to be a different place than it was when I wrote it. By the time you see this, the election for president of the United States will have taken place, and the fate that we in the US — and the world at large — have been awaiting/speculating/dreading will be determined.

Now, however, the campaign is intensifying by the day. I keep up with the daily — if not hourly — headlines with the focus of a gambler at the horse track. I consider it my duty, as I want to arm myself with enough understanding to make informed decisions and persuasive conversation, regardless of how much anxiety it causes. In a twist that is both a relief and a tragedy, this election season has delivered more comedy and absurdity than political gravitas or rhetorical dexterity.

It’s that notion of oratory that I’ve been fixated on for months. I’ve spent countless hours marvelling how far we’ve strayed from the days when politicians were great raconteurs — speech-makers delivering words that inspired us to act. Today, watching a candidate answer a simple question feels like observing players rallying on Wimbledon’s Centre Court — but the players are one person and the rally is throwing the ball against the wall in a cramped bathroom stall of a dive bar, rebounding chaotically within the enclosed space. And, somehow, I’m the one burning calories. It takes energy to decipher what they spew.

That’s not to say that politicians have ever been straightforward about their positions. Modern-day officials (and wannabes) just bob and weave without the oratory grace of public figures of yore. To equivocate with agility is to be a politician of the highest order. This brings me to one of the most compelling political orations in US history: the ‘whiskey speech’.

It was delivered in 1954 by Noah S Sweat, a lawmaker in Mississippi, where Prohibition still hadn’t been lifted. In less than two minutes, Sweat masterfully vilified and defended liquor in one fell swoop. Wait — here’s the catch: it’s a parody.

But by calling out politicians’ reluctance to take a stance, he wriggles his way out of taking one himself. It is such a masterclass in evasion that “if by whiskey” has become shorthand for an argument that hems and haws to avoid committing fully to one side or another of a controversial issue. Every political type today should commit this literary sleight of hand to memory.

“My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey: if when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

“But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”