FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Column: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric

February 26, 2008

Column: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric

Even his most bitter opponents grant Barack Obama one thing – he makes great speeches. The senator from Illinois is generally held to be a competent debater and an electrifying orator.

The notion that Mr Obama is the new Demosthenes has even made it across the Atlantic. On BBC radio the other day, there was a long discussion of the art of rhetoric, illustrated with clips of the best of Barack. William Rees-Mogg, a venerable former editor of UK newspaper The Times, asserts that Mr Obama is the most inspirational presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy and that “he is, in my view, a better speaker than Kennedy”.

All this leaves me baffled. I have watched Mr Obama speak live; I have watched him speak on television; I have even watched his speeches set to music on a video made by celebrity supporters (www.dipdive.com). But I find myself strangely unmoved – and this is disconcerting. It feels like admitting to falling asleep during Winston Churchill’s “fight them on the beaches” speech.

I will admit one thing. Mr Obama has a nice, gravelly voice – which is perhaps a legacy of his days as a heavy smoker. But his most famous phrases are vacuous. The “audacity of hope”? It would be genuinely audacious to run for the White House on a platform of despair. Promising hope is simply good sense. “The fierce urgency of now”? It is hard to see what Mr Obama means when he says this – other than that some inner voice has told him to run for president.

And then there is “Yes we can” – the phrase that was so inspirational that it inspired Will.i.am of hip-hop group the Black Eyed Peas to make his infamous video, backed up by film stars and musicians such as Scarlett Johansson and Herbie Hancock.

The strumming of guitars and crooning drowns out Mr Obama on the musical version. So I had to consult the text to find out what exactly it is that we can do. “Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.”

This sounds to me like a man doing an impression of what he thinks a great speech might be like. It is the kind of empty exhortation that usually gives politicians a bad name. Peter Sellers, a British comedian of the 1960s, caught the genre nicely in a parody speech: “Let us assume a bold thrust and go forward together. Let us carry the fight against ignorance to the four corners of the earth, because it is a fight that concerns us all.” Mr Obama might easily give a speech like that – although he would probably strip out some of the detail.

Exhortation can make for thrilling rhetoric. But the difference between Mr Obama and some of the great speakers he is sometimes compared with is that Churchill, Kennedy and Martin Luther King were genuinely challenging their audiences. Surrendering might have seemed rational in Britain in 1940. King’s “I have a dream” speech was made at a time when racial segregation was still a reality in the southern US. When King coined the phrase the “fierce urgency of now” (borrowed with acknowledgement by Mr Obama), he was explaining why he had come out against the Vietnam war. Even JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” demanded something from the audience.

Mr Obama is much vaguer and much less bold. He has taken the occasional risk. He likes to remind audiences that he called for higher fuel efficiency standards before an audience of Detroit carmakers.

But, in general, his campaign is relying on some of the most clichéd and least challenging slogans in the American political lexicon: unity not division; the future not the past; change not stagnation; an end to “business as usual”; lobbyists are bad, the people are good. Or as the man himself puts it: “We are choosing hope over fear. We’re choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.”

Why is this stuff so appealing? It may be that, in modern America, standing for “hope” and “unity” is less obvious than it sounds. With the economy close to recession and the US locked into the Iraq war, it is not a very hopeful time. And the Bush era has certainly been one of bitter division between liberals and conservatives – and between red and blue states. It is suggestive that both Mr Obama and John McCain, who is close to wrapping up the Republican party nomination, have cast themselves as candidates who can reach across the partisan divide.

And while Mr Obama’s most “inspirational” phrases are vague to the point of vacuity, he has shown in a series of television debates that he is more than capable of serious discussion. You do not get to be president of the Harvard Law Review if you cannot cope with detail.

So Mr Obama is not relying on empty exhortation because that is all he is capable of. It is a deliberate political strategy. And it makes sense. The more a candidate gets stuck into the detail, the more likely he is to bore or antagonise voters. Appealing to people’s emotions is less dangerous and more effective.

Bill Clinton has said sniffily of Mr Obama that “I think action counts more than rhetoric”. The argument of Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that just because Mr Obama gives great speeches, it does not mean that he will be a great president.

I would reverse that. Just because Mr Obama gives lousy, empty speeches, it does not mean that he will be a lousy, empty president.

February 26th, 2008 in US politics | Permalink

89 Responses to “Column: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric”

Comments

Largely, I agree with you on the quality of Obama rhetoric. I think the judgment is due less to the man than to the mediatised political culture that he is operating in.

I have only watched/listened to complete speeches by or interviews with him a few times. His gift is an instinctive internal editor that would confirm he is a product of the contemporary US jurisprudence culture. A law professor would certainly give him higher marks than they do Hillary Clinton. John McCain is best letting his wife handle the tough questions.

While I’m here permit me to call attention to a pop-up ad that just hit me on the Salon.com site. When logging on, a nightime photo of a NYC/Chicago avenue appears and goes dark. Then your screen flashes a couple of times. Then you see the US Air Force logo and the words “Above all” with a series of tag lines that end with “It takes Air Force technology to defend America is a changing world.”

Is this part of the State Department’s soft sell of American values?
Posted by: WCM | February 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am | Report this comment
Gideon,

A piece that I largely agree with, but you denigrate the ‘yes we can’ from a false premise - that it stands against nothing.

There is a generation in America and in Britain that does not see any way of changing the status quo, that the political process is an empty one because ‘they’re all the same’, &c. Against this, the message that the voter can make a difference, *can* get the change they want is a powerful one, *can* do something. It’s one that can only be delivered successfully by an outsider, perceived or real, which is why Obama’s inexperience has not hurt him amongst this constituency and why his campaign garners such support from the young.

Charles S
Posted by: Charles Surface | February 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am | Report this comment
True, but giving lousy, empty speeches means that people will be less able to judge whether he will be a lousy, empty president. This strategy will have to change post the primaries, assuming the supers don’t take him out. Otherwise, the lack of detail will surely sink him.
Posted by: AYC | February 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am | Report this comment
When Mr. Rachman said; “It would be genuinely audacious to run for the White House on a platform of despair” I felt obliged to point out that this is precisely the campaign that Hillary Clinton is running.
Her campaign time and again is pounding on the table and shouting from the mountaintop “We are American’ts”.
Barack Obama is attempting to say to the US electorate that we are indeed “on a mission to put the I can back into American”.
That our policies of riding roughshod over the world are dangerous for everyone.
That in acting like a spoiled adolescent who is not only intent on telling the whole neighborhood how to dress their house, but on what foods to serve, when, in what portions and how to wash ones dishes is precisely the policies that have destroyed the moral high ground that our eternal hope & optimism once provided.
It was this optimism coupled with an awe struck aspect of the Yankee so baffled the world previously and the world so longs for America to abandon its new found haughtiness in the hope that we will indeed mature enough to allow other peoples and cultures their own right to self determination.
For many here in the states we believe that Hillary Clinton is THE personification of the American policy which is premised upon the idea that we know what is best for you and if you don’t do what we tell you to do we will throw a temper tantrum and say that you are not our best friend this week.
A reminder of the life of a 13 year old.
I for one among many do so hope that we as a nation can rise above that approach to national & world affairs.
Just one perspective though.
You, of course are entitled to yours.
Good day.
Posted by: Paul Walker | February 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am | Report this comment
Dear Mr. Rachman,

You express bafflement at the appeal of Mr. Obama’s speeches but go on to give a very convincing explanation.

Quote

Why is this stuff so appealing? It may be that, in modern America, standing for “hope” and “unity” is less obvious than it sounds. With the economy close to recession and the US locked into the Iraq war, it is not a very hopeful time. And the Bush era has certainly been one of bitter division between liberals and conservatives – and between red and blue states.

Unquote

The examples you give are not exhaustive though. The fiasco of the aftermath of Katrina spoke volumes about the chasms in the American society and it seems that any “back to basics” unifying force will find a ready audience.

Finally, American presidents have always thrived on vacuous phrases. Few can beat the vacuity of “War on Terror”, (except perhaps the “Axis of Evil”!), but what is original and interesting about “God Bless America” that so many seem to end their speeches with? Maybe American audiences deserve the speeches they get.

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am | Report this comment
Paul, “we will indeed BE mature enough to allow other peoples and cultures their own right to self determination.”

Hold on a second. Let’s just look a little closer at this and what it actually means. What you are saying is that you would revert to a policy of pure realpolitik? Do you not believe that actually the US might have some of the answers? The terrible reality of moral relativity, essentially the policy you espouse, is that it condemns peoples, who we should be helping, to lives governed by fear, poverty and uncertainty. Do you honestly believe that the citizens of the US are no better off, and I am not just talking financially, than those of Russia, China, Iran, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries?

Clinton does not have it right all the time. In fact I do not think she would make a good President, but one thing she clearly does understand is the destructiveness of moral relativity. Let’s hope Obama shares the same view, in spite of his vapid utterances.
Posted by: AYC | February 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am | Report this comment
Perhaps these speeches should only be seen as the marketing statements that they are- I suspect that a President Obama would have very well-honed (and probably surprising to many) policies, which whenever feasible would also be sold in a similar manner. This approach could (and most likely would) be a powerful tool to gather ongoing support in the US in order to overcome inherent inertia.
Posted by: Ipanema | February 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am | Report this comment
Mr. Rachman,

Famous football players juggling soccer balls, the swoosh, just do it.
Famous Obama juggling stereotypes, the senator’s face, yes we can.
Posted by: Hans Suter | February 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am | Report this comment
Clinton–either Hillary or Bill–certainly understands “the destructiveness of moral relativity.” Nonetheless, she is not so clever a lawyer as she thinks. She is no Glenn Close. Hillary’s can’t-more-than-can emphasises the most negative of female stereotypes and begs the question why smart women continue to support her.

If George Magnus (UBS) is right in his estimation that the US mortgage crisis will knock a trillion (euroes or dollars?) off the economy, and if Joe Stieglitz is right in calculating USD3-trillion has been spent in Iraq, then certainly one can expect smart money to turn conclusively away from US leadership. McCain or Clinton will prove less likely to change than Obama, and the concensus is the US will change.
Posted by: WCM | February 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am | Report this comment
Thumbs up. Good article. Glad you have lent your great writing skills to counter some of the damage Clive Crook has wrought. However, I disagree he could turn out to be a good president. The Harvard Law Review is no test-case for the presidency. In fact, I doubt it even reflects on intellectual ability.

Given McCain’s age, his choice of VP will be crucial. I think Colin Powell would be an excellent candidate for vice-president, since I think Colin Powell could be a good president.
Posted by: RCS | February 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Report this comment
Hi WCM,

I think the money “spent” on Iraq has to a great degree been paid to American corporations to make things to destroy Iraq so a lot of it has not really left the American economy but has simply been distributed from the poor taxpayer to the rich companies of the military-industrial complex and their representatives in the political classes.

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Report this comment
evan andersen

Obama is certainly a good showman and it is hard to know if that is all it really takes in politics these days. Clinton was a good showman, GW is not. In that regard, is Obama really the only good showman. Evan Andersen thinks that when the Republicans get in there it will be fierce. McCain is like the ‘olde’ boy who really can’t do anything wrong whereas Obama simply has good answers to questions. I am still unconvinced that he is anywhere near JFK nor do I think he has the where with all nor team. Who are his advisors and who is the team he will surround himself with. If it is Nancy Pelosi then I certainly am moving out of country.

evan andersen
Posted by: evan andersen | February 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this comment
Do not forget that the message of “hope” appeals to those who want to move beyond the post 60s era of division that has plagued the US. There is a significant percentage of the under 45 generation who has no involvement in government or politics because of the dominance of these issues and leaders. Hillary is the perfect example of the 60s generation - Obama is the antithesis. His message of unification would perhaps be more meaningful for you if you had lived in the US and been so disenfranchised.

Also, I believe that it is only the political wonks who want to hear specific policy proposals in speeches. The vast majority of voters don’t know what the precise policy should be for a healthcare system. They want to elect someone who gives them a vision for the right answer and who is smart enough to figure out the details. Anyone who says they have all the details figured out today is selling you something…and will inevitably change the details later.
Posted by: DE | February 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Report this comment
WCM,

Obama gives amazing speaches - to say the very least. A lot of guys are jealous.
Posted by: Attagirl | February 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Report this comment
Gideon Rachman must have been listening to speeches by a different candidate from the rest of us, one who also happens to go by the name of Barack Obama. The Barack Obama I have been watching, far from using only empty platitudes (like every other candidate for office throughout history) has attracted his following by speaking out clearly on issues that the other candidates have been either unwilling or less willing to address.

Obama is, for example, the only candidate I have heard who has spoken out against “Lewis Libby justice”. He has spoken out against fraudulent subprime lending practices and their effect on minorities, even, if my memory serves me correctly, writing a Financial Times column on this issue.

Obama has also spoken out against the Bush administration’s use of torture and subversion of democracy, against what one columnist (James Carrol of the Boston Globe) accurately calls the cult of military power, and in a slap against the bigots who want to enact “English only” laws as in order to harass Latinos, he has called for every American to learn a foreign language. In Europe, Asia or Africa, of course, this would be a no-brainer. In the US, it takes real courage to say this, especially when one considers which language Obama almost certainly had in mind - (hint, I don’t think he meant Swahili or Indonesian).

Even when he does engage in less substantive rhetoric, how is Obama different from some of the greatest figures of the past? How much substance was there, for example, to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous exhortation, “There is nothing to fear but fear itself”? Were his Republican opponents at the time arguing in favor of fear?

To paraphrase Mr. Rachman’s own words in his final sentence, I would never say that he is a lousy, empty commentator, merely because he has written a single lousy, empty column.
Posted by: algasema | February 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm | Report this comment
Good Article. It captures one of my US candidate pet peeves. Futurama captured it nicely in their skit about candidates John Jackson and Jack Johnson (who were identical but for the fact that they vehemently disagreed with each other). Obama (the person) does inspire confidence but regardless of what his apologists might argue he lacks two fundamental qualities that together make good speeches - the first is ideas - hacks and policy wonks will say “policy” but to Jo Public that translates as ideas. Even in speeches that you broadly disagree with with (”rivers of blood” immediately spring to mind) the rhetoric was used to underpin a policy idea (in that case, changes to immigration law). The rhetoric was the sell for the idea. Commentators comparing him to Dr King and JFK are missing that fundamental point, the rhethoric was to underpin a idea (or for us policy nuts - “policy goal”). My first problem with his speeches is where is the policy goal? He visions this future but then steps back and says trust me when I’m president I’ll tell you how to we’ll get there. To hardened, political viewers we see this emptiness and get worried/cynical etc - but for the Americans (who by the way haven’t had their “Blair moment” - these words seem to be enough.) The second problem with the rhetoric in his speeches is that they fail to capture how difficult change is. This to me is his fatal flaw, because he’s either (a) honestly mistaken, (b) deluded or (c)lying. Dr King’s “I have a dream” speech is a perfect example of how policy, rhetoric and struggle combine to inspire people to take a difficult decisions. To me Obama’s speeches lack authenticity because - it lacks that internal struggle between the difficulty of change and the optimism he’s so very good at enunciating.
Posted by: Corrupted Mind | February 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Report this comment
AYC wrote: “Hold on a second. Do you not believe that actually the US might have some of the answers? The terrible reality of moral relativity, essentially the policy you espouse, is that it condemns peoples, who we should be helping, to lives governed by fear, poverty and uncertainty. Do you honestly believe that the citizens of the US are no better off, and I am not just talking financially, than those of Russia, China, Iran, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries?”

God save us friends like this and we will deal with our enemies ourselves! As a worse-off citizen of Russia I entreat the enlightened US citizens for once to focuse on answers to their own problems - fortunately they will have no shortage of those in the coming years under any president. How much does it take to erase this missionary-visionary nonsense from an average american’s mind? Who asked them for help in the first place? Who entrusted them with the role of a global trouble-shooter?

The problem with any trouble-shooter in a monopoly position is that sooner or later he becomes a trouble-maker. His memory becomes shorter than his aspirations. The same guy who killed in the name of freedom in Vietnam 40 years ago is now running on a platform of another freedom war - and half of the population applauds him! Does this country, these 50-100 mln conservative republicans, half of them ill-educated creationist religious fanatics, have any moral, let alone intellectual ground to help anybody except themselves?

And it’s exactly because the US wants to be a global policeman that it dislikes and undermines the UNO - a truly only body to help the world. The US, despite all its pro-democracy rethorics, does not believe in democracy. It does not believe that the worlds can govern itslef. The herd needs a shepherd.
Posted by: Russian | February 26th, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this comment
>>P Re: ROI on Iraq for US corporations. I suggest it is more limited than one would think. Firstly, the real corporate investors are not simply “American”. Secondly, I return to Kenneth Arrow’s admonition in the 1970s that distorted investments in defence are long-term risks as they do not produce means of production, and by design are ultimately destructive or simply wasteful. In this case I will note that the so-far hidden investments in oil infrastructure are excepted from this conclusion. Others here will challenge whether the “investments” in regional defence are destructive or appropriate as they are still funded largely by US taxpayers.

>>Algasema–GR’s made a quantum leap in his close to the article in keeping the door open to Obama. I suspect he has a picture of Hillary tacked inside some door in his life. Obama v McCain will be hard for him.

The Kennedy rally for Obama at American University was one of the high points of the campaign. Ted delivered US religion and eloquently lamented the manipulative politics of the Clintons and Republicans that have defined the past two decades. While he had to struggle that day to find his footing after Ted handed hil the mike, and he has some awkward moments over these months, I have never seen/heard a regretable utterance from Obama. He deserves credit for raising the bar again, even if he has failed to deliver the quotes of either the Lord of Admiralty who delivered one of the Empire’s saddest days in Gallipoli or the Kennedy who delivered the Progress-for-Peace in Latin America as shareholder value for United Fruit and Archer Daniels Midland.
Posted by: WCM | February 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this comment
Remind me again, Russian, what’s the Russian dream? Whatever it is, your presence on this blog indicates that you seem to have achieved it under the current regime. How many of your countrymen can aspire to the same?

Actually there is a strong historical precedent for interventionist empires policing the world to the betterment of all its people. A specific example is the effective abolition of slavery, enforced by the British navy in the 19th century. Others might be the eradication of piracy, the Pax Romana and the export of French cuisine (just kidding).

The UN can be a useful forum, but in general any good intentions are cynically twisted by certain regimes and / or blocs to further their agendas and move the spotlight away from their endemic failures. Examples might be Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya. Often it is the tyranny of the majority, rather than the justness of the cause, which holds sway. Durban II is a case in point. If Obama really wants change in the world, he could do worse than denounce this hate-fest.
Posted by: AYC | February 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Report this comment
I agree with Mr. Rachman if Obama’s speeches did not move him. In fact I thought the same when I watched clips of his speeches on cnn.com. I was not even impressed by his debating skills which I listened to in entirety, particularly against his opponent’s who I find much more articulate and fluent in whatever she says. The bigger reason in my mind is that Obama sounds more sincere than her in what he believes and says. Mrs. Clinton is a politician who swings in the direction of the political wind and where she sees her political gain, not necessarily what is good for the country. The best example is her support for Iraq war back in 2003 and no support for troop surge more recently. Her poster “We Provide Solutions..” sounds and looks just like a true (bad) commercial. Doesn’t it?
M.guha
Posted by: manju Guha | February 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Report this comment
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance wont come again
And dont speak too soon
For the wheels still in spin
And theres no tellin who
That its namin.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Dont stand in the doorway
Dont block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

Once maybe twice in a lifetime one is lucky to
witness the arrival on the world stage of someone
truely inspirational who will undoubtdly have a positive influence on the lives of millions - JFK, RFK,MLK,Ali. Generally they face great opposition in their early years. This is the way it is.
Obama is such a person.
He can only have a positive effect on the lives of those who recognise this. To his critics - good luck.
Posted by: Vernon | February 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Report this comment
The electorate here has witnessed the polarizing effect of both the Bush and the Clinton administrations and are somewhat weary of having our interests, which on the whole lay somewhere in the middle, hijacked by jackasses from either extreme (read: Hillary or post Straight Talk Express MccCain). Obama’s strength is in the simplicity of his message: Together we can make America great again. Many people here believe (or at least dare hope) that Obama could herald the beginning of the end of the adversarial model which currently afflicts our politics. His messages are simple, but so is our beloved president Bush.
Posted by: Ohioan | February 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
I think one of the most interesting aspects of the Obama rise to ascendancy is the fact that he does not seem to have the standards that are applied to typical candidates applied to him. I personally think this is because America is a media obsessed nation (TV, Internet, Radio). Year after Year after Year of politically correct brain washing has resulted in the U.S. voters cheerily and enthusiastically voting for Obama like Zombies. He’s not the Manchurian Candidate but they are the Manchurian Voters.
Posted by: Tom | February 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Report this comment
You have got to be kidding, right? Have you by chance had an opportunity to listen to McCain speak? He could put anyone to sleep!

But more importantly you fail to have your finger on the pulse of the U.S. electorate if you do not grasp Obama’s widespread appeal, which has only been enhanced by his superb oratory skills. “The fierce urgency of now”? Ummm, that would be quoting or paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King, in case you have not been paying attention. And the quote strikes a nerve with America. We are witnessing a sea change in American politics and the people are hungry for it.
Posted by: Martin | February 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm | Report this comment
For Obama to say that he is willing to talk to people like Ahmednijad and likes of him is a courageous thing, considering that most Americans abhor Ahmednijad. He was againts Iraq war when everyone, including Hillary Clinton and most Democrats, caved in to the fear mongering tactics of the Republicans. He DOES challenge his audiences. It was George W. Bush who, when starting iraq war, made everyone believe that America was in a situation similar to the one Britain was in 1940. I respect Hillary Clinton but she is not original and lacks the courage to go against the popular sentiment. For example, she supported the war up until recently when she realized the tide was turning. For a black man to come this far and become the front runner for the President of The United States, well, I beg to say he has to have more than just fine oratory skills. Obama is for real.
Posted by: Ruben D\\\' Andrea | February 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Report this comment
AYC, I fail to see how my presence on this blog reveals to you anything about my achievements and/or my satiscation with the current regime. However, in answer to your question, the Russian dream is to have a city flat and a country house where he could drink tea with honey on sweet summer nights while the rest of the world may burn in hell. It may be a bad dream, a very egoistic and even short-sighted dream, but at least the Russians do not want to put the whole world to rights any more. Unlike the Americans, apparently, albeit not for long I suspect. The Soviets have had their share of world mongering at the expense of meeting their own basic needs. It seems that the US is in for a similar shock. With a very realistic prospect of millions of US citizens losing their homes and going broke on healthcare costs, I wonder how much longer you will want to fight for freedom in Iraque, Sudan, Zimbabwe or Libya.

You summed it up beautifully yourself: “…any good intentions are cynically twisted by certain regimes and / or blocs to further their agendas and move the spotlight away from their endemic failures.”

Your historical examples are not very convincing: before eradicating, the British empire actually promoted piracy in its rivalry with the Spanish; and the Brits started to eradicate slave trade only after concluding tedious negotiations and treaties with European and African nations. A nice example for your country to follow in the 21 century.
Posted by: Russian | February 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Report this comment
Bravo! It’s about time someone pointed out that the emperor has no clothes on. Obama is a drab speaker who hides chilling policies behind vapid words.
Posted by: Pliny | February 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm | Report this comment
You know, I couldn’t agree with you more. My impression of Obama has always been that yes, he is good, but he is not exceptional. Although his speeches have certainly helped his campaign, his rise has been substanitally propped up by a.)media hype and b.) his appeal to anti-establishment types, which the Clinton campaign has failed to undermine (in part due, not surprisingly, to the media).
Posted by: Political Junkie | February 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Report this comment
I am visitor from Britain who has been in the US for the last few weeks, following the elections very closely and perhaps allowing my natural, home-grown resistance to hype slip a little under the onslaught of the coverage here. But what I do see, which I didn’t back home, is the extent to which people here feel on the brink of something historic, and the mild fear that something may come along to ruin it. People talk nervously about the Republicans, as if they will creep in during the night and spoil the party, as if they may pull off one final illusion and steal it again.

But beyond this, and more importantly, there is real hope. I think Obama has done something here that I’ve never seen in British politics, even in the heady optimism of 1997 (which this all reminds me of), which is to make people believe that what has been broken can be fixed, and that the house of cards Bush has constructed can be blown away. It may be hype, it may even be naive, but there is a sense, growing all the time, that people want to believe in this gawky, unlikely, eloquent man. It is rhetoric, it is ‘just words’, but people are doing something we don’t do to politicians anymore: they are listening. Maybe - just maybe - he is about to change the world.
Posted by: Patrick | February 26th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment
This blog actually ascertains that the people who are moved by Obamas speech are mostly delusional and the author of blog has his feet on ground!!!
Posted by: Obama man | February 26th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment
You know, I couldn’t agree with you more. My impression of Obama has always been that yes, he is a good speaker, but he is not exceptional. Although his speeches have surely aided his campaign, his rise has been helped substantially by a.) media hype and b.) his anti-establishment appeal, which the Clinton campaign has failed to undermine (in part due, not surprisingly, to the media’s embrace of Obama).
Posted by: Political Junkie | February 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm | Report this comment
“Just because Mr Obama gives lousy, empty speeches, it does not mean that he will be a lousy, empty president.” Indeed. He’s smarter than that. Nor does it mean that he will run a failed general election campaign like his Democratic predecessors ran and like what Hillary would have run.

If the usual 50% of the electorate go to the polls, McCain will win by a landslide. But if 75%-80% of the electorate go the polls, Obama will win. The “new voters” will be childish and motivated by glitz. That’s who Obama is appealing to and what he is offering them.
Posted by: Bob Kay | February 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Report this comment
Gideon, obviously you got no groove. You gotta give it up, dog, or you never gonna get laid.
Posted by: Richard in Cali | February 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Report this comment
Surely the very appeal of Obama is that he stands for modernity – against two decades of Bush-Clintonism, against the whole history of the US without a “minority” president, against the tired and tried older generation, against war and imperialism, against social injustice and international ignorance in the White House. Part of that modernity is a genuine attempt to harness state-of-the-art communications technology and an appeal to the young. One result of our email/SMS culture is a tendency to sound-bite rather than discourse, as Blair and his cronies taught us (or thought they did). Bush still speaks as though he were learning to read (I can just see Laura running her forefinger under the words when he practises). Clinton sounds increasingly like a heckler at a council meeting. Obama is in fact a brilliant orator because he has read the lessons and is exploiting modern methods, yet he is wise when he advises parents to put away the videogames and make their children do their homework – when did W or Tony ever dare say such a thing? His Yes We Can slogan is inspiring, above all, because it allows everyone to fill in the gap Yes We can…. Withdraw from Iraq, make the world love us again, compete with China in a fair world of trade, spend the billions wasted on war on education, health and social causes, unite and stop discriminating and stop hating people because they are different rather than because they are bad, negotiate with enemies rather than threatening them, etc. I just hope he will win and do what he promises – then we can judge how empty his words were. And I hope equally sincerely that his words are not empty. And what is wrong with hope? I hope that you will print my mail where Justin Webb of the BBC has repeatedly ignored my messages, preferring to print sound bites by the semiliterate.
Posted by: Andrew W Benson | February 26th, 2008 at 8:13 pm | Report this comment
1) Everything makes it “across the atlantic” these days: we are hardly in the time of the titanic or telegraph
2) ‘Audacity of Hope’ is a book title not speech mainstay
3) The speekers you have quoted as giving speeches that are contentfull and and challage the audiance all involve a speeker allready in office and/or facing serious situations: lets not forget obama is dealing with the pasturised world of primary politics and mass appeal. I have no doubt once elected and facing a serious crisis a speech both inspiring, contentfull and challenging could be delivered. You sort of note this when you credit his ability to have depth in debates but its worth pointing out that the power of rhetoric would not fail him if the country relied on it.
Posted by: Luke | February 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm | Report this comment
You obviously have no idea what American progressives and liberals have struggled against the past seven years. The incompetence and corruption of the current administration, little if any domestic policy agenda (Hurricane Katrina, national debt, immigration, health care) poor foreign policy decisions (Iraq War) and denial of science (evolution, global warming). I am very clear on Barack Obamas’ message in his speeches. Change from closed minds. Hope for less corruption. Progress on issues important to the people.
Posted by: Jerry - Chicago, USA | February 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm | Report this comment
Gideon, who have you been listening to if Obama is not up to your standard? What I hear in Obama is a man of unquestioned intelligence who inpsires in his listener the belief that we need no longer settle for the same old same old.

That might sound trite to you; but in a country where we are repeatedly told that the best we can do is to elect and re-elect members of the same two families, this call for change resonates. This black man with a funny name, by his own success, is proving that America need not always be what it has always been. Slash and burn attacks, fear-mongering and corporate funded campaigns are all we have known for a very long time. That Barack Obama can take this on in the manner that he has and actually WIN is itself the inspiration.
Posted by: Leo | February 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Report this comment
Gideon,
I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion but would like to shed some light on this VERY DARK place you Republicans call life.The difference in Barak and the other candidates is simple. He believes in equality for all people. Notjust those born with Silver spoons in their hands as if they earned anything. His speeches are NOT empty but yet full. With more Americans out there standing for something instead of falling for everything, this would be a better place. Here’s hoping you all never need help.
Posted by: Lisa Lee | February 26th, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this comment
There’s a lot in Obama’s speeches that go against the status quo. For an American politician to suggest, as he does, that we should not use 9/11 as a reason/excuse for everything would be a 180 degree change from the last seven years of policy. It may seem trite and obvious and hopeful, but can one imagine George Bush or even John McCain saying that?
Posted by: Michael Smith | February 26th, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Report this comment
As a former speechwriter and speech teacher, I believe he is a powerful scripted speaker. When he leaves his script and wanders around the stage Dr. Phil style, he loses me. Obama connects largely because he is the antithesis to Bush and the Republicans. What better way to give this crowd the finger than to give them an eloquent, black liberal? Obama is for real. He will soar as a speaker and leader when the stump speech season is over.
Posted by: larry landaker | February 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm | Report this comment
I can understand your bafflement - after all, where else where we going to fight them first but on the beaches. Churchill clearly not an inspirational orator at all!
Posted by: Geoff | February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm | Report this comment
Being a good orator and an awe inspiring public speaker does not make one the best candidate for running the country.. as Germany found out. Not that I am saying for one second that there is a connection in anyway whatsoever! Just that one should not place too much emphasis on the power of the orator
Posted by: Ails Grant | February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm | Report this comment
You’ve nailed it. Hillary’s running a campaign of despair.

As are you.
Posted by: Greta | February 26th, 2008 at 9:19 pm | Report this comment
Mr. Rachman,

While it is easy to be in favor of such obviously good ideals as hope, unity and equality, it is much harder to do so as a politician and to be taken seriously at the same time. Mr. Obama has managed to do that. His sincerity resonates in a culture so cynical as our own. We have been facing a tidal wave of lies since birth as to how to vote, how to dress and which dish detergent to use, that a sincere man who deeply believes in the ideals that we, as Americans, are supposed to live up to is nothing short of revolutionary.

I am 35 years old and fall into neither the baby boomer catagory nor the so-called millenial generation. I consider myself a rational and well-educated man. Yet, I have found myself drying my eyes at a few of Mr. Obama’s speeches (and that is before they added the musical soundtrack). The words, the ideals and the message resonate not because he is saying something new, but because he is so completely and so refreshingly sincere. In my own lifetime, I have admired Presidents Reagan and Clinton at various times. However, even as a young man, I knew that when they spoke, they were ultimately using platitudes to shape their own political agenda and therefore were actually being dismissive and rather insulting to the public’s intelligence. Obama’s strength is his sincerity. Many could have said his words, but it took a special kind of courage to say them in our cynical and skeptical culture, especially as a candidate for president, the least believable breed of humankind.

Brits and Americans view oratory quite differently as well. Brits, to their credit, generally hold language in a higher esteem than we do. One only needs to watch the Oscars, or those embarrassing moments when Tony Blair and George W. Bush were addressing the press together, or any other forum where Americans and Brits make speeches side by side. One starts to see a clear difference in the general respect for language. In America, it is not the turn of a clever phrase, but rather how the speech makes one feel that makes it great. Does it move one to respond? Does it make the crowd feel like taking action? The vast majority of America’s great speakers through history were more fire and brimstone than intellectual discourse–more preacher than professor.

I assure you, if he spoke too intellectually, he would lose. In fact, he was losing in Iowa back when his speeches were too wordly and detailled. A command of language has never been as important a quality to the American voter. George W. Bush won twice and he speaks as though he were clinically retarded.

It’s the sincerity, stupid.
Posted by: Terry Schwinge | February 26th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this comment
I remember reading an FT election blog nearly 8 years ago during the final Gore-Bush stand-off. There was as much vehement emotion from Bush supporters then as there is from Obama fans now (bravo George! intellectually bankrupt author will have no choice but to resign after your dressdown). Seems the whole country has turned upside down. “Obama=inspiration, change, hope, unity, equality, and down with dynasties and corporatism!” (I like the dynasty thing: it took the Americans 2 Bushes to fear one Clinton). Anyway, where are all the American liberals, progressives, anti-corporatists and just normal decent people when Ralph Nader is there for you to vote? Why does it always boil down to so limited a choice? One would expect a bit more sophistication from the world’s showcase democracy.

While this may sound sarcastic, I’m sincerely baffled by the latest US obsession with a new national legend and hope who has so far demonstrated none of the qualities ascribed to him. Why so many people prefer to stake their hopes on an unproven promise of Obama, and why only 1% of US voters, generally tired of clans, dynasties, corporations and brain-washing, vote for a truly devoted liberal and progressist Ralph Nader? He seems to be a fine enough orator, and he talks about your own sores, not about the US becoming great again.
Posted by: Russian | February 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm | Report this comment
‘the audacity of hope’ is the name of barack obama’s book. most of the people at his rallies have probably read it.

the u.s. does not have a parliamentary system where by a bunch of party hacks sit in a back room and chose their candidates. so politicans have to go out, kiss babies, and deliver good speeches while also talking about their policy proposals.

it takes a genuine talent to do all 3. hillary clinton doesn’t have this. and john mccain is merely competent at doing all 3.
Posted by: michellle | February 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this comment
“a bunch of party hacks sit in a back room and choose their candidates” - I thought superdelegates do exactly this…
Posted by: Russian | February 26th, 2008 at 10:01 pm | Report this comment
Inasmuch as I am an American who plans to vote for Sen. Obama, given the opportunity, it may surprise you to learn that I, too, find many of his speeches vacuous. I prefer him to Sen. Clinton mostly because I am against dynastic rule (Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys) and plutocracy generally–Sen. Obama is not, I believe, particularly wealthy. I would not vote for any Republican, simply because Mr. Bush has totally botched everything he has touched. Someone must pay for that, politically, and, since Mr. Bush cannot be made to pay, Sen. McCain will have to do. Britons have a multi-party system of proportional representation, i.e., they often have the privilege of voting FOR someone who pretty closely shares their views. The U.S. has a system of two-party, winner-take-all, local representation. That means that almost half of us often have no incumbent voice, and the best we can hope to do is to vote successfully AGAINST whom or what we oppose. By that process, in my own case, only Sen. Obama remains.
Posted by: Dan Johnson | February 26th, 2008 at 10:08 pm | Report this comment
‘Russian’ –>tony blair was chosen by the labor party. there were no primaries. no one in the uk has had a chance to vote or gordon brown.

john kerry wasn’t chosen by superdelegates. neither was al gore.
Posted by: michellle | February 26th, 2008 at 10:43 pm | Report this comment
i mean ‘for gordon brown.’
Posted by: michellle | February 26th, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Report this comment
The Financial Times has a well educated readership and it seems that is the cause of all the consternation.
All of you who “don’t get it” don’t get it because you’re not the target audience. A speech is a mass communication, even more so now than two hundred years ago.
Persons who’ve read a lot of books, gone to universities, learned all that critical thinking that is so stressed in American universities (don’t know about overseas), and have a genuine interest in policy are not the target audience for a speech given at an automobile factory or union hall.
ALL speeches are vacuous if judged by your standards. And no speech that isn’t vacuous could ever get an assembly line worker, middle manager (university educated or not), or young naive student to the polls. And there are surely more voters in those groups than in the subset of persons who’ve studied politics at Cambridge and Princeton.
In fact, your post is rather vacuous given that nothing in it is unpredictable. So from an information theory perspective, it carries no information.
And for the record, I didn’t vote for Sen. Obama in the California primary. I haven’t drunk the kool-aid, if that’s what you’re thinking.
I was motivated to write by the cluelessness of your post.
Posted by: David | February 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this comment
Peter Sellers’ marvellous piece closed by summing itself up perfectly: “And finally, my friends, in conclusion, let me say just this…”
Posted by: Martin | February 26th, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Report this comment
This sounds like another of those abstruse and rarefied academic discourse of snooty pundits who claim to see beyond others. Obama, he argues, is a lousy speaker, full of empty rhetoric. But his speeches alone are galvanizing a large swath of the nation, across all demographics and resonating even further to all corners of the globe. I seem to be baffled then why he is called a lousy speaker if his speeches have such a powerful effect on people in the face of his socalled “inexperience”. What qualifies one to be called a great speaker? I supposed one vetted and sanctioned by the pundits. So what next, Sir, do we expect that charges of hypnotism, mass hysteria, mysticism and personality cults will continue to be proffered as explanations for the present Obamamania?
Posted by: Jack Bini | February 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Report this comment
For the past 6 months I have been asking my Obama supporting friends, “Where’s the beef?” However, their memories seem to span less than 24 years. I have also noted the similarity of the “¡Sí, se puede!” of the immigration demonstrations a couple years ago and Obama’s, “Yes, we can!” I am surprised that his campaign hasn’t pointed that out to make points with the Hispanic/Latino voters. Overall, I find his speeches vacuous. This worries me because I feel like I won’t know what his policies will be if he is elected. On the other hand, so few national politicians or political parties actually implement their stated policies. Remember the Reagan promise of fiscal responsibility followed by running up the national credit card way over its limit? I agree that Obama is probably capable of making a good speech with substantial content, unlike the current occupant of the White House; however, it is not in his interest. If his speeches have substance, his opposition has a target. By having very little public record and making empty speeches, his opponents have nothing to critcise, other than the fact that there is nothing to criticise.
Posted by: Aaron Schiff | February 26th, 2008 at 11:17 pm | Report this comment
Mr. Rachman completely misses the appeal of Sen. Obama to many American voters. While Sen. Obama isn’t King, Churchill, or maybe even Kennedy, he is presidential, and it’s his charisma and intelligence that explain why he’s leading in the Democratic primaries. Hillary would be an extraordinarily capable executive but she lacks - and it cannot be learned - the personality that an effective President must have in order to succeed in the Oval Office, especially now. I agree with Hillary and Obama, but I am inspired by Obama and his performance in the debates prove that point.
Posted by: Mike | February 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm | Report this comment
I do not agree with the premise that Obama’s speeches are lousy and empty. They are both effective and brilliant because they serve their intended purpose of politically inspiring and motivating a previously disillusioned and apathetic electorate .

I do strongly agree, however, with the last sentence of this piece. If one wishes to know what type of president he will be, and study the details of his platform, many of them revolutionary steps towards a more transparent and participatory democracy, it is all laid out in great detail on his website, barakobama.com. Take and hour and study it. In the meantime please allow him to continue making speeches that inspire the American people to action without your subjecting us to banal and cynical criticism such as this.
Posted by: Matt | February 26th, 2008 at 11:28 pm | Report this comment
The comparisons to Churchill and King are entirely inappropriate. Their words came on the back of a lot of solid action. Obama’s on the other hand are just hollow vacuities, because he hasn;t done anything commensurate with the grandness of this tenor. Put simply, in light of his achievements, his words ring hollow. He seems more of a quack, than a statesman.
Posted by: S Eyre | February 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am | Report this comment
Gideon;

Nice post. I agree with the the article to a large extent. However, Obama, in my opinion, would be disastrous to the US. It is not necessarily that he will be a bad president, it is he would not be an efficient president today.

Having said that, I prefer him over Clinton. And obviously, McCain over both. It is about time a libertarian became president
Posted by: Fabian Schonholz | February 27th, 2008 at 12:15 am | Report this comment
I think Vernon may have “borrowed” the lyrics of a Bob Dylan song in his post, just like what’s his name did in a recent empty speech. Go Billary.
Posted by: David | February 27th, 2008 at 2:00 am | Report this comment
Very interesting article on many points, although I would not characterize myself as being quite so harsh on Mr. Obama or his rhetoric. I do, however, recognize the validity of your arguments.

“It may be that, in modern America, standing for “hope” and “unity” is less obvious than it sounds.”

I would like to take a moment to talk about Mr. Obama’s words as they relate to my generation. I am a member of the younger college/postcollege age demographic which people have often cited as something of a base for Mr. Obama. This may not be a surprise to some, as more idealistic words of less substance seem to always appeal to a younger generation. I find it to be interesting because I often characterize my generation as wholly jaded. We’ve seen the idealism of the 60s turn into the drug-addled haze of the 70s , only to become the high flying profiteering of the 80s, finally settling into a pre-packaged spoon-fed media status quo in the 90s and 2000s. Seeing the hopes and dreams of our past generation become reabsorbed, repackaged, and finally fade away after such time only serves to us as a reminder to how causes always fail to truly bear fruit. I feel very much that I grew up in a generation which has seen the broken promises of the last generation and decided that apathy would be better than idealism. I think I grew up in a generation which has seen words like “hope” and “unity” and “freedom” with cynicism and disdain.

One would rightly ask, then why is there so much support for Mr. Obama among younger voters. I think younger voters perhaps see in Mr. Obama a certain amount of sincerity that is atypical of politicians, as others have mentioned. I think the core of it is that Mr. Obama speaks from a point of view that really comes from the point of view of a younger generation. He talks of failed policies and unfulfilled ambitions and says to us that he sees them as well, and still thinks something can be done. Hope, I think, is a much rarer thing than many outside the US and outside my age group would assume. Daring to hope that our situation will be better is an audacious thing to believe in because we’ve seen hope and ideals fail so often. All to often we’ve seen genuine idealism either fail to change the core issue, or become corrupted by someone willing to take advantage of those ideals. The real world, it seems, is not a place for hope or ideals.

To hope is actually quite a challenging thing. Mr. Obama’s words are perhaps just empty rhetoric as any politicians’, but I think he struck a cord by being the only person to talk of hope in a time of such real cynicism. Mr. Obama represents to me the potential to believe again that change is possible. I am willing to vote for him just to give the man a chance to prove it.
Posted by: Jon | February 27th, 2008 at 4:56 am | Report this comment
Just a small point: do politicians challenge their audiences and demand something of them when they are seeking office, or only when they have gained it? Kennedy’s “ask not” speech was made at his inauguration, not on the campaign trail. Churchill’s “beaches” speech was made from the dispatch box, not a soapbox. The “I have a dream” speech was made by the leader of American’s civil rights movement, not by someone seeking to become its leader.
Posted by: Roger G | February 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am | Report this comment
It’s funny that people critisis Obama for his empty rhetoric. this is why:

- Real politics is not about what you want to say but about what people want to hear you say (or in other cases not saying wat people dont want to hear)

So dont blame Obama, blame the people of the USA.
Posted by: Guido | February 27th, 2008 at 8:47 am | Report this comment
Very interesting thread. Many good and heartfelt comments. Few, however, recognise that the result turns less on the respective performances of these two candidates than on geopolitical agendas that must still turn on what remains of a tacitly democratic process in the US.

The warm-up band for the Democrats has taken the stage and threatens to steal the show. Don’t forget that the warm-up star likely has made a pact with those who brought him into the house in the first place.

Last night’s debate, which I could not watch live from here, may mark the turning point. I was able to catch BBC, Euronews and CNN clips this morning, and could not help but note how they portrayed Hillary as the fatigued, but entitled “teacher” trying to win back her classroom from a bright boy, who looked contrite. When she said she was “concerned” about memos and leaflets the Obama campaign has put out, these clips failed to mention what the Clinton girms have been up to.

AIPAC put money on Hillary taking the White House and McCain gaining stature and controlling the other side of the aisle in the Senate. Or perhaps even joining a de facto coalition government in Defense. They will not lose their bets easily.

It will take more than speeches and a genuine emotional sweep in the US to overturn the Likudite agenda that has put the grand multilateral achievements shaped from the ashes of WWII at risk.
Posted by: WCM | February 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am | Report this comment
Wow GR, you really stirred up a hornet’s nest. Clearly Obama is a genius. As a representative sample, the posts here demonstrate that his speeches are a blank canvas onto which you can paint any picture you want. A superb strategy, but one which, as I have previously pointed out, won’t stand up once he gets through the convention (if he does). Platitudes only get you so far. Once McCain really pitches into him, he’ll have to start doing some painting himself.

Russian, clearly beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And I would say that your points about the British empire are all true. But they still eradicated it. That is a good example for any power to follow, whether they were late to the decision or not.
However, on your point about “at least the Russians do not want to put the whole world to rights any more”, I think that’s because they are too busy concentrating on one specific part for the moment, the near abroad: Chechnya, Georgia, Serbia and the Ukraine. After those projects are finished, perhaps Russia will start to flex its muscles further afield - why otherwise the increase in military expenditure? And sweet summer evenings only give way to long winter nights.
WCM, where DO you get your information from? AIPAC have put money on Hilary getting in? I wish I was as informed as you. And pray tell, how do we get from an article on Obama’s empty rhetoric to Jews controlling the White House? I could hazard a guess, but I would be accused of shutting down the debate.
Posted by: AYC | February 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am | Report this comment
AYC, do not worry about Russia’s flexing muscles. And don’t listen to Putin’s press conferences too much. Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia and examples of nothing more than his fiery rethorical talents. And increased military spending is due to a runaway inflation in the defense industrial complex. In unit terms the army got just 3 (three) new military aircraft since 2000, and its nuclear arsenal has been halved (I can refer you to soucres in you want). China is much more likely “to help” the world in 21 century. I can already picture the US Ambassador to the UN protesting against unilateral and unjustified use of force by China against Russia’s breakaway republic of Siberia in 2058…
Posted by: Russian | February 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Report this comment
When in dire straits eighteenth century New England sailors has a tradition of relying on African American crew members to give up prayers for help. It was thought there was some special connection with the Almighty due to the phraseology of the prayers…a sort of magic. Apparently, many unsophisticated Americans still rely on word magic.
Posted by: Joey, Calif. | February 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment
He has made many very good speeches. It is is DELIVERY style that is the key and what people are relating to. I don’t know how anyone could listen to his speech the night he won S. Carolina and not be moved by his words and passion. More important than the speeches is that mind of his… Obama has one of the most thoughtful and refined minds that the world of politics has ever seen…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | February 28th, 2008 at 7:05 am | Report this comment
I’ve been following the Democratic primaries and watched many of the debates.

Two points:

Obama has adapted the logical result of the McCain(R) - Feingold (D) Campaign Reform Act of 2001, by building a strong ground-up campaign achieving a huge income from an average of $108 (repeat $108) contribution per person. Which leaves about $2200 to legally “call” on.

In contrast to Clinton, he strikes me as a better unifier. And sadly, she’s not likeable.

Obama’s innate trait and his grass roots funding will serve him well in the struggle against McCain.

Whether Americans will decide to have the House, the Senate AND the White House ALL under Democrats will still determine November Tuesday.
Posted by: owl | February 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am | Report this comment
The great challenge of Western leaders these days is to solve big strategic problems while winning elections short-term.

Since the days of desegregation and Viet Nam, the United States has been a country divided. The country is on a downslope, fearful of terrorists, more a Financial Economy than the productive, innovative place it has the potential to be.

Obama knows these simple truths. His brilliant rhetoric has the potential to lead a coalition of the center to work as a single team - and get the country back on track.

Obama is not stupid: he was first black president of Harvard Law for 100 years and he graduated magna cum laude.

He’s the one chance the U.S. has.
Posted by: Norbert | February 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Report this comment
Comments like Norbert’s above chagrin me. My own perspective remains cynical, but, as I wrote months back here, Barack Obama first caught my attention for just the reasons stated above. His Cambridge, MA Alma Mater was abuzz about him when I last visited in September. I had already noted exceptional feedback from his AFrica trip in 2005.

Nonetheless, there are two still cynical scenarios to anticipate:

1) The closer Obama gets to a win, the greater the efforts will be to nail him down on interests that McCain and the Clintons are largely already bound to.

2) The closer Obama gets to a win and makes clear that he will be as independent a thinker as many here believe and many more hope, then there truly is a chance (call it imperative) for US Middle East, Oil, Cuba and economic policy to change.

What key changes can we then anticipate amongst US partners and enemies?

Also, I think it would be helpful if the FT focused less on the horse race at the top and offered a bit more insight as to the policy shifts that are clearly underway. For instance, names like Susan Rice and Anthony Lake pop up only in one archive story. Yet these names pepper blog entries. Obama’s take on Africa and Cuba policies should be of increasing interest, as are his readings on the banking/mortgage/credit crises. Virtually no mention has been made relating to Obama in any article or commentary.
Posted by: WCM | February 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this comment
[…] must read is Giddeon Rachman’s devastating Obama and the Art of empty rhetoric. Rachman is editor at the exceptionally pro-Obama Financial Times, and along with Paul Krugman, […]
Posted by: Stop Obama » Race statistics | February 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this comment
It’s hard to respect those who complain about the American gov’t as reason for not participating in it. People get the gov’t they deserve. If you haven’t been participating then you got the gov’t you deserved. Actually, the rest of us did, too. Where were you people in 2000? Gore certainly was not a pariah. And did everything possible to distance himself from the Clinton years, which amounted to 8 years in total. Bush was the one who pounded the message of restoring dignity to the presidency. He not only receives a failing grade, but he also squandered the surplus Clinton left him. I guess the resentment must be if Clinton hadn’t left him so much to work with then Bush wouldn’t been able to wage his idiotic war throw us into obscene debt.

There’s no doubt that America must change. But since I agree that the empty rhetoric of Obama gives me pause, I cannot bet my life on the flimsy possibility of hope. Particularly, because I fall into an income bracket that would be the first to be affected catastrophically should all hell break loose. On that point, are the rich and super rich, the mighty corporations ready for substantive change spearheaded by an Obama presidency? Are they willing to do business differently? Pay more taxes? And get the burden off the middle class? Obama doesn’t address these things. And as more and more comes out about the way he calculated his meteoric rise in Chicago’s dirty politics, it’s clearer to me more than ever that Obama has calculated this run for president for a very long time. It’d be nice if he could leave a few crumbs as hints about what is his LARGER PURPOSE for those of us not moved by empty motivational rhetoric. As a one of the children of the 60s labeled as divisive in a comment above, let me remind you that my generation was also about love, peace, harmony and above all CHANGE from the stiff, conservative ideas of the Eisehnower/Nixon generation. A lot of good that did us as we were labeled radicals and some shot down killed, reviled, arrested and ostracized or sent off to Viet Nam to be killed, maimed and then spit on upon return. The country would have been better off if they had really listened to what we were projecting. Instead, it spawned the Nixon years followed by the deep dark Reagan abyss which spawned an obsession with greed and all things material and a need for America to play cowboy to the whole world.

Personally, I don’t think Obama has a plan other than the ego gratification to be president, which all the candidates share. What frightens me is that his performances in the debates and when he has to speak extemporaneously. He is no where near as fluid as Hillary nor does he demonstrate a command of the issues.

People liked Bush over Gore and see where that got us. I learned my lesson from the last 2 elections: maybe I don’t need to like my President so much. Maybe, just maybe a healthy amount of disdain will make them work harder for approval. Go Hillary and if not then go McCain. I prefer to know what I’m buying!
Posted by: Waldimore | February 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am | Report this comment
As Waldimore’s post above illustrates, it seems the Clintons’ supporters still standing in the hall are left with little more than wonder-boy taunts and murmured, if embarrassed fears about what Obama may really be like.

Nostalgia for Bill Days is yet another contradiction for true Hillary supporters. Waldimore writes, “And (Gore) did everything possible to distance himself from the Clinton years, which amounted to 8 years in total. Bush was the one who pounded the message of restoring dignity to the presidency.”

Distance and dignity. That was what it took for those who competed to replace Glorious Bill.

The most irritating line from the Hillary girls is their belief that Bill handed George a booming economy and a huge surplus. A chronic sputter had returned to Bill’s economy by the end of the first quarter of 2000. Let’s not forget.
Posted by: WCM | February 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am | Report this comment
A veritable Neocon friend joined for dinner chez-moi yesterday together with a strongly non-Neocon ‘tribu catholique’ friend. Friendship between the three of us runs deep and long. It needs to sometimes on this topic.

The Neocon is neither Jewish nor Anglophone, so stereotypes do not hold. Nor is he French.

He has bet that US voters will NEVER vote for a black. He believes McCain will make this a very ugly campaign should Hillary lose, which he is not so sure will be the case. His two dinner friends feel Obama could win and that there is a profound groundswell of discontent in the US that will drive the win more than rhetoric or other personal qualities.

Nonetheless, it is my concern that voter turnout demographics for the November election in the US remain virtually unknown if Obama IS the Democrats’ candidate. If it is Hillary v McCain, turnout will likely fall lower than ever recorded. Just a guess.

What was more troubling was a discussion about economics, population growth, Malthus v Ricardo, etc. The Neocon articulates a haunting, but oft repeated line in those quarters that wars are necessary regulators.

If other assumptions discussed hold any likelihood, then big wars will be needed.

Thoughtful, credentialed people are as confused and scared as others. The Vietnam years do not offer parallels for the ideological crisis we are in today. So, for most, these are uncharted waters. I will hope that US voters give Young Mr Obama the mandate he seems destined now to claim. Thus he will deprive Neocon Exceptionalists of the momentum they have built playing on Malthusian or even more cynical fears.

What will they do if Obama deprives Hillary Clin-con of the nomination?
Posted by: WCM | February 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pm | Report this comment
Obama’s speeches are so popular because people believe him, even when he uses “platitudes”. He speeches seem authentic to me, that’s what distinguishes him from Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Marco Lehman | February 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Report this comment
Good comment, Marco Lehman. Obama comes across as genuinely believing what he says. Hillary - the opposite. Moreover, as I stated in my earlier comment, Obama has spoken out clearly on quite a number of very specific issues. Otherwise, why would so many people be piling onto him now for being allegedly too “liberal” or “left”?

Unfortunately, the normally astute Gideon Rachman has, evidently, not bothered to listen carefully to Obama’s speeches or answers in the debates. Not every one of them, clearly, has been a masterpiece. But “empty rhetoric? Look no further than Mr. Rachman’s own column for abundant evidence of that.
Posted by: algasema | February 29th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment
Sorry for leaving off the quotes after “empty rhetoric”.
Posted by: algasema | February 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Report this comment
Greetings:

The Democratic presidential candidate who offered the most substantive proposals to the country’s problems (as acknowledged by the New York Times’ ombudsman) — former Senator John Edwards — could not win a single primary. Perhaps this was because the media’s coverage of the primaries was of the sort that one might expect from People Magazine or The National Inquirer. Mr. Edwards’ expensive haircuts got more attention than his policy proposals. He also suffered the consequences of being candid with the American people in “revealing” that to pay for national health care, taxes would have to be raised. It is a shame he did not learn the lessons that both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale did.

Similarly, the Democratic candidate with the most gravitas — Joe Biden — was virtually ignored by the U.S. media.

Presidential campaigns in the States are a combination of theatre and sport. Senator Obama’s “rhetoric” is probably no more vacuous than that of the late President Reagan; he should be able to out-campaign Senator McCain. Mr. Obama is smart enough not to run on details, since the average American voter is not a policy analyst, but a spectator looking for inspiration.

In addition, a majority of Democratic voters dread the idea of continuing the pattern of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. Our country rejected the idea of a ruling dynasty long ago.

What better way for a majority of the American people to signal the world that it does not support the domestic and foreign policy’s of George W. Bush, than to elect an individual of mixed race who lived part of his life in Indonesia?

Admittedly, the break from tradition may not be as great as it may first seem. Yet historically, the U.S. seems to do better with Presidents from Harvard (e.g. both Roosevelts and JFK) than Yale (e.g. the Bushes and Clintons). Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 did not appreciate this when it denied Harvard graduate the White House for specious (political) reasons.

President George W. Bush has certainly lowered the “presidential threshold.” Perhaps the country needs a policy of “no adult left behind.”

Regards,

Ethan Burger
Posted by: Ethan S. Burger | February 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm | Report this comment
Re: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric

Senator Obama’s obvious contempt for the intelligence of Democratic voters, expressed by his vacuous rhetoric, reminds me of science fiction writer Robert Heinlein’s admonition:
“Never try to teach a pig to sing - You’ll only waste your time and annoy the pig.”

Eric Hand
Posted by: Eric Hand | March 1st, 2008 at 11:39 am | Report this comment
[…] 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 […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | On Obama’s “lousy, empty speeches” | March 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm | Report this comment
[…] Crook has given me a bit of a going over because of my critique of Obama’s speeches. Here is my […]
Posted by: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Obama - a response to my critic | March 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Report this comment
[…] 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 […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | On Obama’s speeches, cont’d | March 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm | Report this comment
I occasionally read Mr. Nachman’s columns and so far have found that he doesn’t understand USA politics. There is nothing wrong with his comments that Sen. Obama’s rhetoric is weak. I find Sen. Obama to be amazingly forthright and credible whether speechifying or not. As others have noted in their entries, Sen. Obama’s appeal is partly due to the appeal of his persona (his background, name. racial mix, appearance, etc.), to the image he projects as the anti-George Bush and partly anti-Hillary Clinton and as a new, articulate, Kennedyesque figure (including an extremely bright, articulate, frank and gorgeous wife and adorable young children). What Mr. Nachman seems to completely miss is that the average voter with some modicum of knowledge of current events is sick of the Clinton-Bush regimes regardless of any substantive positives that Sen. Clinton might offer. He or she is fully aware, unless a blind die-hard supporter, of the utter incompetence and sheer destructiveness of the current Bush Administration. The average voter is also suspicious of Sen. Clinton based on her own words and actions, just as Republican primary voters were suspicious of Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani. Any national politician who offers something different than the same lying, misrepresentations and blind ambition of these more or less mainstream politicians is received positively, once again largely irrespective of substance or details of policy proposals. Perhaps Mr. Nachman should address foreign affairs (foreign from the British vantage-point that is) excluding the USA and leave the USA to specialists such as Mr. Crook. I do not always agree with Mr. Crook, but his comments about USA events are always on-target and within reason.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 am | Report this comment
In his article Mr. Nachman fails to realize Sen. Obama speeches are short on details for a reason. He cannot expect to fill stadiums to full capacity in such far away places as Iowa, Wisconsin and Kansas. He is making speeches for full affect and presentation in a mass arena setting. Also the speeches are made to uplift the people and to stir excitement. It is true that his stump speech is becoming a bit tiresome so now Sen. Obama has started to balance the time before audiences with half speech and the other half in questions and answer sessions. One thing you can say about Sen. Obama is that he is a gifted speaker much better than President Bush, Cheney, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. The only politican that comes close to Sen. Obama might be George Galloway.
Posted by: David Craig | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am | Report this comment
This discussion is moot. Obama and Clinton are of one degree of seperation. They are both hard core Socialists. If either becomes President they will both be taught a very quick and sharp lesson by the Equity Market. That lesson is Socialism has always failed no matter what pretty paper it is wraped up in.
Posted by: Flash | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Report this comment
“Why is this stuff so appealing? It may be that, in modern America, standing for “hope” and “unity” is less obvious than it sounds.”

I completely agree that the key selling point of Obama is that you can “join a movement” without doing anything substantive. This is the same as buying a pair of Nikes and taking on the identity they’ve offered you as a brand purchaser. Thus, he offers a “post-racial” candidate that assuages white liberals eager to forget about continuing inequalities. And, he offers white and black people overall a way to connect with previous generations. Skillful, yes, but problematic. I really can’t imagine the guy governing. How would the people following him relate to someone who’s not spewing flowery phrases. That’s what they’ve wanted from him.
Posted by: tm | March 24th, 2008 at 3:45 am | Report this comment
i agree with a lot of points made. but you have to take one thing into consideration. it is true that “Churchill, Kennedy and Martin Luther King were genuinely challenging their audiences. Surrendering might have seemed rational in Britain in 1940. King’s “I have a dream” speech was made at a time when racial segregation was still a reality in the southern US.” but then agian is Barrack’s call for unity not parallel to Martin Luther King’s “dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”

you have to understand first and formost that The “UNITED” States of America, is indeed a divided nation. It was founded as, and can still be regarded a heterogenous state (many DIFFERENT people from DIFFERENT countries (mainly of Europeans) came to “The New World” and turned a piece of land [which was already occupied by reffered to as Native-Americans]) into their home. further more there has been an exodus of Latin American peoples which moved to the US following political and economic crisis. and let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Africans stolen from their native land and thrown into the US. already 1 can see why there would be difficulty for unity judging by the differrent ethnic groups within the borders of the united states. but it doesnt end there. there is also the social issue in america. like Felipe Coronel (better known as “immortal technique” once said in his “Poverty of Philosphy” statement “As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue”. one has to understand that America being a capitalist nation, it is bound to have divisions of class. and i have noticed that in most cases if not all, the presidency of the US has been partaken by a member of the upper class. they are then inclined to make decisions that would benefit the upper classes more than those of the middle classes and the proletariat, for a number of reasons.

now is it not a great and noble thing for a “black” (hence the quotation marks. although we all know that barrack obama’s mother was caucasian he still is referred to as black, as is was customary in the former America when a bi-racial human being of black and white descent was deemed as black as is it to say “he/she is dirty enough”) man who was brought up in a middle class society would vouch for the development and needs for and entire nation. Yes Martin Luther King Jr. was speeking at a time of great racial injustice, but then again is Barrack Obama not calling for a segregated for the same; unity.

Real name: Karabo Mojaphoko
Posted by: Razkill 99 | April 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Report this comment
evan andersen

well, the empty rhetoric finally caught up to him in Pennsylvania last night. The polls went nuts for Hillary. I am just suprised someone like Britney Spears does not run to be honest. She unites us all without ever saying anything. I was just watching CNN the other day at the airport and there she was, trying to get her kids back from her former boyfriend. Evan Andersen thinks Britney should run for president and say nothing!

evan andersen
Posted by: evan andersen | April 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm | Report this comment
The man does give great speeches. Empty, but great. I see the train wreck a-comin’!
Posted by: The Peach | May 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this comment

February 26, 2008

Column: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric

89 Responses to “Column: Obama and the art of empty rhetoric”

Comments

Post a comment