Gideon Rachman has posted a response to my post on his column about Obama's speeches. I'll offer a last brief word, and then leave the verdict on Obama's speeches to history. First of all, though, on a personal note, let me say how stunned I am to be accused of (in my previous life at The Economist) "remorseless logic, fierce invective, and a total lack of sentimentality". Gideon, you wound me, I bleed. Surely not. I was universally regarded as a complete softy--or so it seemed to me, at least. Don't tell me that wasn't so.
Though he still stops short of saying it outright, in his response Gideon relies more explicitly than before on the "Obama's fans are all idiots" explanation of the candidate's appeal. Obama, he suggests, is the Barbara Cartland of American politics. (I have to wonder how many people have been inspired by Barbara Cartland, but let that pass.) Gideon's tastes are more refined than that--as are mine, needless to say. But Obama's speeches impress a surprisingly wide demographic, if this point is correct. In fact, Obama seems especially liked by the kind of metropolitan intellectuals who share Gideon's and my disdain for brainless romantic fiction. Something about him, whatever it is, clicks with poor urban blacks and with Harvard academics. As I pointed out, many of his political enemies--smart ones and stupid ones alike--think he gives a great speech.
If somebody is unmoved by a speech, there is nothing anyone can say to change his mind. It is a personal thing, no doubt. But the "Obama's fans are all idiots" theory that underlies Gideon's view seems to me just a case of poor observation. It simply isn't true.
On "Yes we can...", Gideon continues to apply an obvious double standard. "I have a dream". Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Yadda, yadda, yadda. These phrases resonate when--and only when--they make their intended connection with the audience. Again this is a matter of observation rather than textual deduction. If analysis of the words says "this is a lousy speech", and the speech brings the house down night after night, exciting many different kinds of audience, then there is something wrong with the analysis.
The point about "Yes we can..." is the "we"--that is, the summons to the audience. Of course it might mean nothing in practice. That hardly needs saying. But the same was true of "Ask not..." To say it lacks substance, to complain about lack of detail, is to miss the point. You might as well say that the Gettysburg address would have been improved with some figures on the casualties, and obviously a lot more detail, for heaven's sake, on what "government of the people, by the people, for the people" really means.
Great moments help to make great orators. In this Obama has an unfair advantage, I cannot deny. He is the only candidate who might be America's first black president. His candidacy is the very reason why this election feels--to Americans anyway--freighted with historical significance. This does not make Obama's words read any differently on the page. But it lends his speeches extra meaning and force. He knows that, and uses it. The best political speakers down the years have always merged context and content to their advantage.
Hillary is surely right. Great speeches do not make a great president. But somebody once said (was it Groucho again?), "Money isn't everything, but lack of money isn't anything." I feel much the same about good speeches.
Sir, Your observation on Gideon Rachman's article is right. Some of the "greatest" British columnists are very good to put down others to uplift their ego. In all honesty, all the greatest leaders are those who have been able to unify others through the power of words. Obama inspires and that inspiration is not empty as it is backed up by a well managed campaign that has been winning by doubke digits. If this is empty, what else can be full.
Sir, Your observation on Gideon Rachman's article is right. In all honesty, all the greatest leaders of our time are those who have been able to unify others for a higher purpose through the power of words. Obama inspires and that inspiration is not empty as it is backed up by a well managed campaign that has been winning by double digits. If this is empty, what else can be full.
If somebody is unmoved by a speech, there is nothing anyone can say to change his mind. It is a personal thing, no doubt. But the "Obama's fans are all idiots" theory that underlies Gideon's view seems to me just a case of poor observation. It simply isn't true.
Mm, I dunno.
The same pretty much summed up my attitude whenever Ronald Reagan opened his mouth.
I think the comparison between Reagan and Obama is apt. Judging by OpEd pieces, others do to. Both have a knack for communication that reaches past their ideological territory.
It is easy for me to remember Reagan as president. I don't remember Reagan the candidate very well though. Just flip that around for Obama (a tad hard to remember him as president, eh?).
If Obama wins, it will be interesting to see if he can or will continue to bridge the partisan gulf. Reagan had the 'advantage' of a Democratic congress. If Obama also does, he may be tempted toward partisan action, which might be ugly for his party after 2 or 4 years.
I don't think that Rachman's point or thesis was that 'Obama supporters are/were idiots' but that Obama's rhetoric, while impressive and soaring, carry away his audience and distract them from the lack of substance *behind* the rhetoric. Rhetoric, almost by definition, lacks real substance; however good rhetoric can be back by substance. JFK's "Ask not" speech was about self-sacrifice in the face of the Cold War and increasing social injustice. MLK's "I have a Dream" speech was about the need to struggle and fight to end segregation. On the other hand, Obama's "unity" speeches are aimed at convincing pre-disposed listeners that bitter partisan rivals can agree on common agendas based on Obama's rhetoric.
Here the arguments about substance and challenging the audience meet, because Obama's unity theme lacks a challenge to Democrats about what they will have to give up in order to acheive unity. JFK and MLK didn't say it was going to be easy nor did they say that there wasn't going to be sacrifice. Where is the sacrifice or difficulty in Obama's speeches?
Anyone who has worked as or with community organizers or with the personnel of aid agencies in developing countries will recognize Obama's style of speech as that of a very effective community organizer. As you said in your earlier post, there is real substantive bite in "Yes, we can!" Part of the bite is on the "we" -- BO is saying this is something we can do, together; not as individuals, and not somebody else doing the work for us or to us. That is substantially different to the chant of "Yes, she can", which Hillary's supporters have shouted. There is also bite in "can". BO is saying that we should not give up hope, that despair and apathy are not the only option, that the situation is not hopeless. These aspects are not nothing.
The full impact of this message may be missed by the average writer on the FT, who (I imagine) rarely spends time in situations or with people needing the help of community organizers. Perhaps Mr Rachman should get out more.
In the end, you should all remember that Mr. Rachman's original column (I saved it from the FT) concluded that just because Obama made bad speeches it didn't mean he would be a bad president.
While I disagree with that conclusion, I think Mr. Rachman had it right: Obama's speeches are occasionally eloquent but almost always empty.
His eloquent and empty moments are part of his memorized and carefully rehearsed stump speech, where his audience knows the lines and can chant in unison, on cue. The speech is a variant on revival tent oratory. The people in the tent are roused by the heat and press of bodies, and get high from hyperventilating as they dance and chant. Knowing that the speech produces great sound bites, it is staged to impress us as on our TVs we see the enthusiastic response of the audience, and think there is something real going on there. There isn't.
Obama's target audience is the affluent and educated segment of a generation whose slight experience of worship in practice leads its members to think that to be at an Obama rally is to have a unique experience. (This does not apply to the African-Americans in his audience, who are getting what the expect when they go to the meeting house.) While the elation experienced or seen is genuine, it is the product of simple manipulation of basic human traits. Stage tricks. Don't believe me? When next you hear "Yes We Can! Yes We Can!" think, "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!" Better yet, see "Triumph of the Will" ASAP. You will be immunized from these cheap tricks in about three hours, but you can still give yourself up to them any time you want to. The experience is in the gut, not in the brain.
When speaking extemporaneously, Obama is a lousy speaker. He hems and haws and his thoughts are poorly organized and expressed. Good speakers know that you can risk appearing to be stupid by taking a few seconds to think through an answer or statement, or you can demonstrate you are stupid by rattling on without a moment's thought.
Judging from his learning curve in the debates, I suspect his staff has produced a series of miniscripts, issue by issue, which Obama memorizes and rehearses with less intensity than he has given his stump speech. That's ok, because the scripts give him a broad track to follow and a few phrases to drop in. It's an easy way to appear smarter, more eloquent and better informed that you might otherwise appear to be.
Don't worry about any of this. If he gets into the White House, all his speeches will be well written and well rehearsed. Press conferences will be howlers, though.
I know what I'm talking about. I was a state champion debater in high school (Pennsylvania) and college (New York). I am an attorney and in nearly thirty years of going to court I have rarely heard someone with a legal eduction present himself so poorly. (I'm focusing on appearances, here. His arguments, especially on the third or fourth bite at the apple, are often pretty good.)
One would think a politician with Obama's ambition--the real fuel for his campaign--would have troubled himself to have learned more of the basic techniques of public speaking. That he appears to have dropped out of the course at mid-semester speaks volumes of his respect for (low) and his understanding of (very, very good) his audience.
The effect of this showmanship is amplified by the breathless comments of his naive recruits about being invited into a community. First one gives money, then one is asked to volunteer or is invited to events where one can talk with like-minded and enthused people. And all of this is common to every political campaign I have supported in the last forty years. Nothing here is unique except its portrayal in reports of the Obama "movement."
I always thought people went to college to learn how to think. At least as to the present generation, so impatient to seize the levers of power after so many years of ignoring their right to vote, I am clearly wrong.