March 2, 2008
On Obama’s speeches, cont’d
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.
Most of the populace is unintelligent (this was the reason for devising the electoral college) and urban intellectuals not the least so. What’s more, yuppies and the like are the most prone to follow fad and fashion (in bicycling, dress, their cars etc). This is how they pursue status, which for many is the essence of their lives.
Much of Obama’s appeal, as you readily admit, is the possibility (you say probability) of electing the first black president. Surely this cannot be a serious reason for supporting a candidate for the leadership of a unipolar world’s sole superpower. (If he were a titular head, then maybe it would be.) To paraphrase King: a candidate for the presidency should be judged by the content of his character, not the colour of his skin. This is not to say Obama is lacking in his character, but only to point out that such considerations — which you did mention — should be rejected outright. To do otherwise would be to acquiesce to the feel-good factor which is a core component of that which drives fashion.
Posted by: RCS | March 3rd, 2008 at 3:40 am | Report this commentRegardless of where “most of the populace” is, the fact is that Obama is actually losing against those with a lower education and winning amongst those with a college degree. So to back Clive’s previous post, to say that anybody who follows Obama is an idiot just seem contradictory of the cold hard numbers. Infact, it is CLINTON who does better with blue-collar workers with little to no education beyond high school.
I do not think that him being African American has a HUGE profound effect on his speeches as Clive suggests, and I think Obama has done a good job in playing it down. The first comparison I made to Barack Obama was JFK, not MLK, not to mention he is biracial. However, naturally in this election, African Americans are prone to him and women prone to Hillary. This is only natural. Though I personally do not believe this is a good reason to elect a leader, I don’t blame people who do. I cannot possibly relate to the excitment they must feel because I don’t share their traits. So I think we should cut them some slack… Hell, they’re excited! Let ‘em be! It’s a revolution of its own.
Though I would argue that his speeches aren’t vacant at all (he talks about policy in all of them except for his big win speeches which are the really moving ones, and I agree with Clive on these), I would argue even further that regardless of content, to say that they are empty or lousy to anyone with an education, and generalize even further to say that they don’t appeal to anyone without a heart. Again, look at the numbers, people who are educated are moved to, even more so than those who aren’t.
Posted by: Kevin | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 am | Report this commentI find it fascinating that Mr Crook cannot identify with Mr Rachman’s description of him as a man without any sentimentality.
We see here a true example of the psychological anguish caused by managers. Clearly Mr Rachman feels what he feels. He believes, and clearly has believed for many years, that Mr Crook lacks sentimentality. Mr Crook apprently never noticed - or preferred not to notice. He replies that “I was universally regarded as a complete softy”.. This shows that first Mr Crook refuses to believe Mr Rachman feels what he says he feels. Secondly, he is in effect saying that there is something ‘wrong’ about Mr Rachman thinking like this - as it is going against the views of everyone else (although we have to take Mr Crook’s word everyone else thinks he is a softy.) Like this he isolates Mr Rachman in his views and again, using this power play to intimidate Mr Rachman into not feeling what he actually does feel.
This is what might be called a denial-double whammy. Not only does Mr Crook deny he has hurt someone else’s feelings, but denies the other person even experienced what they adamanatly claim they felt. In sum, for Mr Crook the fault lies with Mr Rachman for thinking such outlandish ideas about his old boss. Ironically, this only confirms that Mr Crook does lack a certain emotional faculty.
This is a classic office scene: The boss denies that he has hurt you, instead he implies that you are unfair to criticize him because from his point of view everyone thinks he is “a softy”.
Posted by: Richard | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Report this commentThis really is a wonderful case of a person in a power position refusing all blame for how they make others feel in the workplace.
I live in Chicago and have watched Obama speak. I was moved, as was the entire audience of mostly well-educated white people. He is a great speaker, because he knows his audiences–and can reach almost any person in them. He channels enough Southern preacher (a la MLK and Jesse Jackson) to appeal to blacks and get repressed white people (like me) to feel–but tempers it with just enough F.D.R.-restraint in his cadence to make us feel that we’re not being blind-sighted by emotion. This balance of soaring rhetoric with restrained, purposeful delivery is so effective because it’s a genuine reflection of who he is: the black Christian who attends a gospel church on the South Side of Chicago; and the man who served as President of Harvard Law Review. This is why Obama’s speeches have us in thrall. To use a phrase that Obama himself might like: he is the unification he is preaching!
Posted by: Lori H | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm | Report this commentSadly Obama is probably not going to make it. He is to much of a threat to the proisraelic jewish lobby. If he is nominated as democratic candidate for the presidency he will be crushed from both sides, Republicans and the jewish lobby within but not restricted to the Democratic party. GR blogs are just the beginning. He seems to be trying to rationalise his visceral feelings against BO.
Posted by: bmh | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Report this comment[…] I was amused by this analysis of my relationship with my present and former colleague that appeared on the comments section of […]
Posted by: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Clive Crook - I surrender | March 4th, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Report this commentThis argument doesn’t stand up at all. All sorts of people - intelligent and stupid, young and old, black and white, etc etc - get swept up by collective emotions: the outpouring of grief at Diana’s death, the hysteria about the Spice Girls, the Nuremberg rally, etc etc. It does not follow that the object of the mania is someone of exceptional talent.
Posted by: Philippe Legrain | March 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Report this commentHaving just been to the South Side to speak with a group from the 7th Ward (Obama Chicago District), the general feeling is NOT
“This balance of soaring rhetoric with restrained, purposeful delivery is so effective because it’s a genuine reflection of who he is: the black Christian who attends a gospel church on the South Side of Chicago; and the man who served as President of Harvard Law Review. This is why Obama’s speeches have us in thrall.”
I heard statements such as “the neighborhood was blighted when he came here; it was blighted when he left” “what did he ever do for his people” “the schools are terrible” coming from the very people Sen. Obama claims to represent.
In thrall? Or a ham-actor who has no concept of his constituency?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 4th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Report this commentTo John Powers: Maybe if Obama, rather than you, had been speaking to the 7th Ward in Chicago, people would have been a bit more enthusiastic(!)–and that’s my point: HE can win people over with his speeches, in a way that few others can.
Also, before claiming that he has “no concept of his constituency” uhh…maybe you should check the numbers. In the 7th Ward, where you claim people are disillusioned, Obama received 93.35% of the primary vote, compared to 6.29% for Clinton. Sounds like people find him “likeable enough.” I’m wondering if perhaps you wandered into a McCain rally down there or something…
Also: I listen to Urban Talk Radio in Chicago. I work on 95th St. There is overwhelming support from the South Side for Obama, as there is on the North Side.
Posted by: Lori H | March 7th, 2008 at 4:04 am | Report this commentOn the central issue of his debate with Gideon on Obama’s speeches, I have to say that not only do I agree with Clive’s persective on Obama’s oratory, he also presents a much more robustly argued case than Gideon.
I greatly enjoy Gideon’s blog - it’s the only one I follow on an almost daily basis. But on this occasion he let himself down with an intellectually sloppy response with the Barbara Cartland analogy.
I don’t disagree that vagueness and rhetorical flushes abound in BO’s speeched which is frustrating for some observers. But these stump speeches are simply not the right channel for conveying detailed substantive info to satisfy the policy wonks. Those that look for this content miss the point of these speeches.
On a more peripheral note, I have no idea whether Gideon’s characterisation of CC is warranted. The first piece of work of his that I read and was attributed by name (unlike most Economist articles) was a survey on CSR in 2005 (I think). That really was a poor piece, very poorly researched and created a false target which it duly tore apart. (Interestingly the Economist recently ran a similar survey and have reached very different conclusions, which would have been the case in 2005 if Clive had spoken to the right people). Since following CC’s writing in the FT, he has steadily increased in my esteem and I now view that original survey as a professional aberration on his behalf, and I have come to expect the considered and well informed opinions that was so lacking back in 05.
Posted by: DKM | March 9th, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Report this comment