March 2, 2008
On Obama’s “lousy, empty speeches”
I’ve been giving some thought to last week’s column by Gideon Rachman on the “lousy, empty speeches” of Barack Obama. Gideon is a brilliant fellow and, it so happens, an old friend. It has troubled me that he could be so wrong about this, and I feel I owe it to him to set him straight.
Surely the simplest test of a speaker is the effect he has on his audience. It is indisputable that Obama has moved and even inspired hundreds of thousands of listeners. This is something that even his political enemies concede. His speeches might be “empty”—I’ll come back to that—but how can a political speech be “lousy” if it does exactly what a great political speech is supposed to?
One answer of course might be that the people Obama impresses are all idiots, or more than usually susceptible to mass hysteria. Since I myself find his speeches moving, this argument does not much appeal to me—but that might be how Gideon accounts for Obama’s success. Some of the adulation is exaggerated enough, I admit, to lend this view credence. But it isn’t just Obamaniacs, or Democrats, or wavering independents such as myself who admire the man’s way with a speech. People who would never dream of voting for him agree that he is a fabulous speaker. Has the whole country lost its mind over Obama’s oratory? I think I would rather say, “He is a great speaker. Just look at the results.”
Gideon is on firmer ground when he calls the speeches vacuous. The problem here, though, is that the best political speeches are almost always vacuous, at least in the sense that Gideon invokes—namely, failing to get “stuck into the detail”.
Unwilling to argue that Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy gave lousy, empty speeches—why is that, by the way?—Gideon has to assert that “the fierce urgency of now” meant something momentous when King said it but was meaningless when Obama quoted the phrase. And he has to say that JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” really amounted to something, whereas Obama’s “Yes we can” is vapid. But all those expressions are impotent when excerpted from the speeches they were used in. They derive their force from the words that surrounded them, and from the circumstances in which they were spoken.
Gideon lays great stress on challenging the audience: that is why King and Kennedy were great orators, he says, and Obama is not. But isn’t “Yes we can” a call to action—a challenge to the audience—much like “Ask not…”? Also, remember that Obama’s main audience at the moment is the Democratic electorate. On some important issues, notably trade, he has pandered to party sentiment. But his theme of national unity really does challenge the Democratic base. This call is indeed, as Gideon muses doubtfully, “less obvious than it sounds”.
Many Democrats hunger for revenge after two terms of George Bush; the mutual loathing of the two parties would be difficult to exaggerate. When Obama calls on Democrats to reach out to Republicans and make common cause in addressing health reform and other issues—with his party controlling both houses of Congress and confident (maybe too confident) of winning the White House as well—you bet he is challenging his audience. It tells you something that he has been the only Democratic candidate to do it. The strategy risked offending the progressive wing of the party; because of it, many of its members remain suspicious, despite his (from their point of view) impeccable voting record.
“Why is this stuff so appealing?” Gideon asks. Here is my answer. Obama understands rhetoric. (That repeated “Yes we can…”, with variations, is called anaphora.) He has an appealing, positive and uplifting message. As I say, he (gently) challenges his audience. His timing is good: he promises a less combative style of politics, and this is something the country now wants. And let’s not forget that he is black. The possibility, now becoming the probability, that Obama will be America’s first black president gives every speech a mighty extra jolt of excitement. People who listen to his speeches think that history is being made. Every orator should be so lucky.
One more thing. In my column for Monday’s FT, I ask what went wrong with Hillary’s campaign. I mention her difficulty in seeming sincere. Obama has no such difficulty. He seems authentic. In American politics, that is an unusual thing, and it makes a huge difference. (“What greater crime can an orator be charged with than that his opinions and his language are not the same?” – Demosthenes.)
Both Gideon Rachman and Clive Crook are missing the main point, namely that much of what Barack Obama has to say is neither “empty” nor “vacuous” (as if there were a difference). Here are just a few of the issues that Senator Obama has spoken about with a good deal of specificity:
1) “Lewis Libby Justice”. This, of course, is not just a criticism of President Bush’s commutation of the prison sentence of Vice-President Cheney’s former top aide, but a reference to the scandal in which the administration tried to punish an early critic of the Iraq invasion by destroying his wife’s CIA career, and then lied about it. Any voter whose memory goes back further than the latest sound bite will understand that the above quoted three words stand for a condemnation of the whole campaign of lies and intimidation of dissent that President Bush and his neocons used in order to sell the Iraq war.
2) Subprime mortgage foreclosures: Senator Obama was, arguably, one of the first, if not the first, presidential candidate to speak out against the fraudulent and predatory lending practices, perticularly in minority neighborhoods, that led to the subprime debacle and world wide credit crisis. He is the only one who has written a Financial Times article on the subject, in which he called for more regulation. This was anathema, of course, to the libertarians and the apologists for the predatory lenders (usually the same people), some of whom wrote anguished letters to this paper denouncing this proposal. None of them, however, complained that it was “empty” or “vacuous”.
3) Immigration: Senator Obama is the only presidential candidate who has spoken out clearly in favor of immigrant rights by supporting driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. True, Senators Clinton and McCain have also been courageous supporters of immigration reform, including an end to bigotry against Latinos and a legalization program for the many millions of people whom no civilized country would be able to consider targeting for mass deportation. However, Hillary waffled on the driver’s license question, and McCain has caved into the anti-immigrant bigots whom he had previously rightly denounced as latter day “Know Nothings” (referring to the 19th Century movement against Irish immigrants). Specifically, McCain has agreed to postpone any immigration “reform”, i.e. legalization of illegal immigrants and increased visas for qualified legal ones) until the Mexican border has been made “secure”, namely never.
Latino voters in Texas and elsewhere, by the way, might be a lot less enthusiastic about Hillary if they were aware that some of the harshest anti-immigrant laws on the books were signed, not by President Bush after 9/11, but by President Clinton in 1996, five years before the attacks.
4) Trade: Senator Obama has horrified those who benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements favoring the investor class at the expense of outsourced workers, environmentalists and himan rights advocates. His threats to “opt out of” or “renegotiate” these agreements to make them more equitable have aroused a storm of criticism - not because they are “vacuous”, but precisely because they are so clear.
5. “Change” and “Yes we can”: Granted, these words may not mean very much by themselves. And, as a campaign slogan, “Change” goes back at least to the 1944 campaign of Tom Dewey against President Franklin Delano Rossevelt (as I pointed out in a recent FT letter - there are doubtless much older examples as well). However, in the context of what has happened to America’s democratic institutions under seven years of Bush/Cheney, “change” has a very clear meaning - dismantling the whole system of torture, illegal spying, arrest without charges, indefinite imprisonment, denial of habeas corpus rights, and concentration of power in a secretive, unchecked executive branch, that have led to what will be the only enduring legacy of the Bush administration - Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Can America change this rush toward becoming an authoritarian state? Yes we can, Barack Obama and millions of his supporters earnestly believe and hope.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentAt the risk - no, the certainty - that I am belaboring this point, the debate over whether Barack Obama’s speeches are allegedly “empty” or just “vacuous” (a dictionary synonym for “empty”) is best described as a tussle between Gideon Tweedledum Rachman and Clive Tweedledee Crook.
However, there is nothing either “empty” or “vacuous” about Mr. Crook’s contrast between Hillary Clinton’s struggle to sound sincere and Barack Obama’s obvious authenticity. Are not meaning what one says, showing that one has firm beliefs that one is willing to stand up for, and giving expression to a strong determination to change the direction of our country toward a more just and inclusive society the best ways to give content to one’s speeches? In this, no one can compare with Barack Obama.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentI was hoping that for once, I would be able to overcome my bad habit of careless typing, but, clearly, it was not this time, as witnessed by my misspellings of “human rights” and “Roosevelt”.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentI think Mr Rachman gave a very good rationale for why Obama’s speeches are vacuous: when Churchill, for example, roused the British to resist Nazi Germany, there was real meaning behind the rhetoric. It was not mere demagoguery, it was oratory intended to effect concrete results. The same can be said of Martin Luther King’s speeches. As for Kennedy, here I disagree with Mr Rachman — I think “ask not…” is as empty a slogan as any that Obama has articulated. For what did Americans need sacrifice at the time — during the period of the post-war economic boom, before Vietnam. Kennedy’s words were as empty and meaningless as “Yes we can”. They were intended to effect a pleasant sense of morality within the audience, akin to paying charity or going to church. As a result, electors would gravitate towards the candidate which aroused within them such good feelings. This was, in effect, psychological manipulation.
Like Kennedy, so Obama.
It is difficult to explain what is authentic, just as it is difficult to explain what is great art (the two are interrelated). Read the Gettysburg address: this is great oratory, great literature — and very clearly authentic. I even find it difficult to juxtapose “Yes we can” with the latter in the same paragraph. It is garish. (I wish I could send it to the Mac’s trash basket, and then hear that satisfying shredding sound!)
Posted by: RCS | March 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Report this commentClive,
First of all, thank you for your blog. It is very interesting to read because of the substance of your analyses and points of view. When I have time and I can navigate on it, it is always a real pleasure.
I am a French Speaking and my English writing is not perfect. So, I beg apologies for readers if my writing has some mistakes.
Your analysis on Obama Speeches is very pertinent. I was very surprising about critics made on “Obama’s rhetoric”. For night of times, rhetoric is the first resource of politics. Politicians use rhetoric to express their ideas. They use rhetoric to debate on issues in the “Res Publica”. And in Democracy, the rhetoric is the resource citizens use to lead policies and public actions. What makes difference is the capacity of rhetoric to mobilize people in action; it is its capacity to inspire different folks with different interests, with different beliefs and convictions to come together and share a common vision. This capacity of rhetoric is the essential quality of a talented, strong and inspiring leadership in politics. This capacity characterizes the speeches of Barack. He is authentic and his rhetoric is not just words. He communicates a Vision to Americans. He touches Americans with ideas and propositions to deal with challenges and issues the Country is facing. The most important, he can bring Americans together in action to deal with theses issues and challenges. That makes his rhetoric a power aging among people who are choosing him as the next President of the USA.
Posted by: Joseph | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Report this commentI’ll serve up that the “empty rhetoric” part is pretty clear when the Senator’s voting record and campaign positions are (180 degrees) different than his speeches.
It is mildly perplexing that Sen. Obama has got good results from demonizing the wealthy, while protecting a gigantic tax loophole (or 3) for his big donors, which he neglects to bring up in his speeches.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentRCS, I never had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but as a young law school graduate, I did have the privilege of working on a case (on the side of Dr. King) involving his immortal “I Have A Dream” speech. One of the most commonly used insults used against Dr. King was that he was a “demagogue”, who was allegedly trying to stir up hatred among black Americans with what his critics clearly regarded as “empty rhetoric”, even if they did not use that phrase, Gideon Rachman not yet being active at that time.
I also heard John F. Kennedy speak at Harvard University while I was a student there. He was an inspiring speaker and president, but a great deal of what he said sounded perfectly ordinary then and would sound no different now. One should be careful before drawing invidious comparisons between Barack Obama’s speaking style and that of even the greatest figures from the past, who were, to say the least, hardly universally recognized as either great speakers or great leaders while they were alive.
When I heard Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 convention on television, I immediately thought of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom I had heard speak on the radio as a young child. Of course, I was far too young to understand much of what he was saying, being only 8 years old when he died, but there was something about the cadences of his voice which made one feel that he was able to rise to any challenge whatsoever. Needless to say, there were more than enough people in America then who hated every word that this greatest American orator of the 20th Century ever spoke, and there already seem to be plenty of people in America today who feel the same about Obama’s speeches. Maybe this is a sign of his greatness.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Report this commentAnother typo - I meant to write: “one of the most commonly used insults against Dr. King”. Yes, I am a native English speaker with two Harvard degrees. But no one would ever suspect that from my bad proof-reading.
Posted by: Roger Algase | March 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm | Report this comment[…] FT Home > Comment > Blogs > Clive Crook’s blog > Individual posts Subscribe to FT.com or view and edit your subscription details. « On Obama’s “lousy, empty speeches” […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | On Obama’s speeches, cont’d | March 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentHaving read your column on Senator Clinton’s lack of sincerety, I continued reading with this column. I laughed at your dismal that all Obama’s fans are idiots and why.
I LOVE the man’s speeches. I can’t decide which I find more exciting, the idea that our first black president will be as inspiring as JFK or the fact that our country will be led be a caring, sincere, intelligent person who understands every day people.
I have a confession. I have actually bookmarked the donate-to-Obama web page because I like the video on that page so much. We all need a little boost as we go through our day and I get more from that video than I do from two cups of coffee.
I feel sorry for the people that don’t relate to Obama, as they must live lives of quiet desperation.
Posted by: Anne | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Report this commentClive,
The point about Hillary’s sincerity is well taken. I would like to add that her constant refrain about being ready on Day 1 of entering the Oval Office is in remark contrast to her campaign’s readiness to effectively organize a
winning strategy. And what Hillary Day are we on now?
Obama words are only empty rhetoric if they are not followed by deed. If you had worked on Obama’s campaign like I have, you would have seen young campaign workers from all backgrounds,who are hard-working and idealistic, working 24/7. Old enough to remember the spirit of the sixties, their enthusiasm brings me back to that age of Hope. It is upon this spirit that I pin my hopes for the future success of Obama’s campaign not just his words.
As you mentioned the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are not that great. Besides its what they are able to get through Congress that counts not what is published on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Mary | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm | Report this commentThank you for your rebuttal of Gideon Rachman’s silly opinion piece.
What seems to be forgotten, especially by British commentators, is that the candidates in the US Presidential election are not running for the job of Prime Minister in a legislative chamber. If they were, then claims that their speeches lack substance might make more sense, since a PM with an elected majority is able to enact his or her party manifesto pretty much uncontested (at least in Britain, although usually not in, say, Australia where a Government typically faces a hostile Senate).
But that is not the case in the US. The best that a US President can do is to propose an agenda to Congress, and then do his or her utmost to persuade Congress to enact it. The President has far less direct power to create legislation than does a British PM. This system of divided power (and the associated checks and balances) was deliberately created by the framers of the US Constitution.
In such a system, the key weapon — perhaps even the only weapon — of a US President is what Teddy Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit” — the President’s power to speak and to persuade. He or she can persuade directly, arm-twisting individual members of Congress (and individual newspaper editors) in private, as LBJ did. Or he or she can go over their heads and persuade the people, speaking publicly with the objective that creating a groundswell of public opinion in favour of some initiative will lead to members of Congress falling in line, as Teddy R., FDR and Ronald Reagan all did.
Clearly, a President’s rhetorical abilities matter in this situation, and they matter much, much more than any policy detail he or she may propose, since such details will in any case be the subject of negotiation with Congress (and perhaps, later, the Supreme Court). I am stunned that the journalists following the campaign mostly do not recognize this. They clearly have not been watching the relevant episodes of The West Wing — for instance, the episode where President Bartlett pays a surprise visit to the office of the House Speaker and is refused entry.
Rhetoric IS substance for the US Presidency. We should be judging the candidates on their rhetorical ability and their character and judgement, rather than assessing policy details.
Posted by: Peter | March 7th, 2008 at 12:39 am | Report this comment[…] Crook defends Obama’s oratory from accusations that it’s vapid and empty. “Of course it is” he insists. And […]
Posted by: Club Troppo » What makes a great orator? And is Obama one? | March 16th, 2008 at 6:37 am | Report this commentI am less concerned with his speeches, than I am with Obama’s vapid and vacuous adult work history. There is no significant impact as a result of any of his efforts - other than his run for President. I have adopted the terms vacuous and vapid as adjectives to describe his legislative carreer, his community organizing, his impact at the Harvard Law Review, his work history as an attorney (Contracts and Other assorted paperwork?). When I look at some of the other candidates who have decided to run I see the enormous impact of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giulianni. Even Ralph Nader had a truly significant impact on on the auto industry and the American Consumer movement. I continue to have trouble with the fact that Barack Obama has had little to no impact on anything or helped anyone at this point in his life. Why should I think we will get anything different in the future?
Posted by: Mary OK | May 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentAs the Europeans well know, Americans are suckers. As an American, I never thought I’d see so many of my fellow saps crowded under the same tent (Obama’s).
This fraudulent demagogue hides behind his unoriginal mask of sociopathic emotional manipulation. And he’s damn charming too. Now I know what Germans felt like listening to Hitler.
To all my U.S. liberal friends: you do NOT KNOW THIS MAN. YOU WILL LIVE TO RUE THE DAY YOU LET THIS MONSTER RUN OUR NATION.
And to all those European living dead corpses that pass judgment on American leadership - go back to your cultural graves. You don’t even have the guts to have children let alone make a sacrifice for good in the world. The faith is STILL Europe, and Europe is STILL the faith. Who would of thought Europe’s faith would end up in the pit? C’mon people, choose life. We suckers are rooting for you.
-AlmostChosen
Posted by: AlmostChosen | June 24th, 2008 at 12:43 am | Report this comment