Michael Kazin argues, persuasively in my view, that effective rhetoric is a really important part of being an effective politician so it makes little sense to castigate a rival as offering rhetoric rather than results. Obviously, rhetoric alone won't make the country a better place (it could be effective rhetoric in pursuit of bad policies) but it's an important element of an effective politics.
« Sales Pitches | Main | Barack in Space »
In Defense of Rhetoric
02 Mar 2008 02:22 pm
Comments (24)
persuasively in my view
Tank.
Well, yeah.
Power in a Democracy is always based on cooperation which in turn always depends on effective communication.
****
Even if you buy into Clinton's questionable trickle-down theory of power and change, you've still got to persuade somebody that supporting you and your policies is a good idea.
Without that, you really are just hoping that you'll somehow be able to deliver.
I wonder if Matthew's going to tackle this article, which inaccurately describes Arcade Fire's members as Texas natives. Only 2/7 of the band's members are from Texas; the rest are definitely Canadian.
Clearly this gross distortion is evidence of the NYT's bias against Hillary.
And are we to equate successful campaign rhetoric with successful governance rhetoric?
The criticism of Obama is that he has not actually demonstrated the strengths and virtues and tactics his rhetoric promises.
Two glaring examples:
His antiwar rhetoric when he has really failed to lead on the issue in the Senate.
His rhetoric on reaching across the aisle when his time in the Senate doesn't show him to have been willing or able to compromise and work with the Republicans.
I am not saying he should have done these things but he is the one making the promises.
I especially fault Obama's rhetoric on trade. It is pandering of the lowest kind and worse, Obama knows full well that he will neither withdraw from NAFTA nor make substantial changes to it.
Worse than rhetoric in favor of bad policies, because it is more disheartening, is rhetoric which fails to inspire change of any kind.
His rhetoric on reaching across the aisle when his time in the Senate doesn't show him to have been willing or able to compromise and work with the Republicans.
Huh? Did Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn suddenly stop being Republicans?
Or Bond, or Hagel, or Brownback? I'm pretty sure they're all: 1) Republicans and 2) folks Barack's worked with.
We haven't even gotten to the Illinois Senate yet. I know, I know, it doesn't count. Like Wisconsin.
I especially fault Obama's rhetoric on trade. It is pandering of the lowest kind and worse, Obama knows full well that he will neither withdraw from NAFTA nor make substantial changes to it.
The US can certainly force substantial changes to NAFTA. It forces substantial changes to lots of international agreements against the interests of much less dependent states than Canada and Mexico.
Point taken Jake, thank you. and I should have been far more exacting.
You must admit that his record is remarkably thin for one professing his willingness and ability to make nice with Republicans.
Worse still, JTHB, is "rhetoric" that is narcotic, as evidenced by the good Senator Clinton.
The US system elects a president, not a prime minister. The president can't shove through legislation by his or her own power. S/he has to get others to move. Rhetoric is one essential tool in this process.
And I expect you're a great success at punditry and probably a very rich man, since you can read minds at a distance. Otherwise, how can you tell that "Obama knows full well that he will...."? That's a lot to claim based on one reported and disputed remark from a supporter, not the candidate himself. If we want to start hanging the incautious or inept remarks of supporters around the candidate's necks 100%, well... that's a competition that Senator Clinton will lose hands down.
.
JTHB,
Your logic is too fuzzy.
You complain about Obama's supposed failure to translate his "antiwar" rhetoric into results in the Senate.
What you obviously miss is that his antiwar rhetoric was against starting a dumb war that would cause problems down the line.
Since Obama's been in the Senate, the Senate hasn't voted to start a new dumb war, as far as I can tell. So I'm not sure your complaint makes much sense.
And of course Jake's already dismantled your point about "reaching across" the aisle when it might do some good. I would add that a further strength of Obama's record that Clinton can't touch is his ability to "reach across" false divisions within the electorate to attract reasonable swing voters of good will.
Obama's ability to talk in a way that builds support for his policies is something Clinton hasn't exactly demonstrated throughout her "35 years of experience."
JTHB,
Your logic is too fuzzy.
You complain about Obama's supposed failure to translate his "antiwar" rhetoric into results in the Senate.
What you obviously miss is that his antiwar rhetoric was against starting a dumb war that would cause problems down the line.
Since Obama's been in the Senate, the Senate hasn't voted to start a new dumb war, as far as I can tell. So I'm not sure your complaint makes much sense.
And of course Jake's already dismantled your point about "reaching across" the aisle when it might do some good. I would add that a further strength of Obama's record that Clinton can't touch is his ability to "reach across" false divisions within the electorate to attract reasonable swing voters of good will.
Obama's ability to talk in a way that builds support for his policies is something Clinton hasn't exactly demonstrated throughout her "35 years of experience." Give him just a couple of years and I think we'll see more results.
First let me be clear: I am not promoting HRC. Her campaign has no practical chance of success and so why waste time making comparisons between her and Obama?
My charge that Obama knows full well that he is lying about NAFTA does not require mind reading.
NAFTA has been an overall plus for the US. Do you seriously believe Obama will consciously worsen the trade deficit and further increase unemployment?
And because he will not try to force a US withdrawal from NAFTA and our partners know it he has no leverage to force major changes. Nibbles about the edges certainly but nothing on the scale he promises. And he knows that to be true as does everyone in the Democratic establishment.
I don't think the point is that there is anything intrinsically wrong with powerful rhetoric. I think the point is that powerful rhetoric without an an equally powerful record to back it up may just be a false promise. That's even more likely when the substance of the rhetoric - such as it is - is so lofty, and seems to be promising so much, that the burden of proof is even higher on the person delivering it to justify why anyone should believe he could come through.
Hope is not enough... we need a *reason* to believe.
May I point out that not voting to start another war has nothing to do with ending the current war in Iraq?
And if such is the argument for Obama being antiwar well you can see why so many of us are disgusted by Obama's campaign.
Well, it ain't got a thing if it ain't got that certain Je Ne Sais Quoi. But a politician also has to have better than that.
It's not a slap at either Clinton or Obama, but rhetoric without being able to deliver some degree of progressive change in reversing decades of right-wing corrosion isn't what America needs.
However, after decades of poor choices and a refusal to force elected officials to be accountable -- it may be what we deserve.
I wouldn't mind the "rhetoric bad" charges by HRC if she enumerated the alternative tools at her disposal. I reckon many people owe her and WJB a boatload of favors, and perhaps she's very good at horsetrading*. Beyond that what can politicians do? Armwrestle over legislation?
*The counterargument to be made is that these tactics are actually inferior to rhetoric in that the latter actually builds a broader base of support for an initiative. And it's out in the open. The alternatives I listed are possibly more "anti-democratic" as they might involve the back-room dealings that the electorate is likely to be suspicious of.
This is what people aren't getting about Obama's message for "change" and "unity." It has little to do with ideology, and almost entirely to do with approach. Treating the other party with respect (i.e. not questioning their patriotism), disagreeing without being disagreeable (i.e. not storming out of Congress to protest a vote), etc. Obama's done that for 12 years now.
Matt: "effective rhetoric is a really important part of being an effective politician so it makes little sense to castigate a rival as offering rhetoric rather than results."
That doesn't logically follow. The two propositions in that sentence have no connection with each other logically.
Matt's Harvard philosophy degree obviously contained no course on logic.
Big surprise.
The sentence is properly parsed as:
1) "effective rhetoric is a really important part of being an effective politician" - true, possibly leaving out the adjective "really". That, of course, also assumes that "being an effective politician" is a desirable goal. In context, I suppose it is.
2) "it makes little sense to castigate a rival as offering rhetoric rather than results" - False. It makes little sense to have rhetoric without results. Therefore, rhetoric without results can be castigated.
The question at hand is whether or which candidate has results as well as rhetoric. The problem is that Clinton, like Obama, has neither rhetoric nor results. The only "results" Clinton can point to are the Iraq war vote (wrong) and the KL Amendment (wrong). Obama at least can avoid those two, although on Iran, Obama is also wrong in his policy.
Rhetoric without facts to back it up is bad. That is Obama's - and Clinton's and McCain's - problem with regard to foreign policy. They have their facts wrong, on Iran, on Afghanistan, and on Pakistan.
Worse, their intentions (in the case of Clinton and McCain, at least) are clearly wrong. Clinton is an AIPAC stooge, and McCain is a militarist lunatic. Obama could conceivably be re-educated on the facts on Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were he to have the proper advisers.
Rhetoric has had a bad name since Plato. It's also been admired, and considered a necessary qualification for a politician since Aristotle.
Rhetoric is the means for a political leader to engage the people in the democratic process. Hillary imagines a kind of technocrat who can leave the people out of the equation. A leader who can command the respect of the public has enormous leverage with congress. This Obama can do. Hence he has enormous additional muscle regarding any program he may have. Even Republicans will thing twice about challenging or voting against a president who commands popular respect. Obama embodies this, while Hillary thinks only of back room dickering. hillary's image is that of a CEO, while Obama's is of a president of the People.
What reason would we have to believe in Clinton? The Clinton campaign's logic is odd. We are bad on charisma, so we must have more substance! He thinks before he answers questions in debates and we have our talking points and bad xerox jokes memorized so we don't have to think, so that means she's more substantive! She hasn't been able to run on a single theme without changing it every week, so she doesn't know what she is actually selling about herself to the electorate, so she doesn't actually know why we should believe in her.
As Reagan knew very well, for a candidate--and especially for a presidents--talking *is* doing. And it's through rhetoric that he did (and Obama could) "change the trajectory."
According to Tony, the problem is Democrats have spent the last 8 years questioning the patriotism of Republicans and storming out of Congress to protest.
I assume he first became involved in politics after seeing the Yes We Can video.
Comments closed March 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Like, duh.
Posted by Bill | March 2, 2008 2:37 PM