The World

I’ve always felt a bit queasy about columnists who debate with each other on the pages of their own papers. It can seem a bit vain and self-referential. On the other hand, the whole phenomeon of blogging is vain and self-referential. So here goes.

Clive Crook has given me a bit of a going over because of my critique of Obama’s speeches. Here is my response;

Clive’s first argument is that Obama can’t be a “lousy” speaker because his speeches have “moved and even inspired hundreds of thousands of listeners”. (Make that millions, if you like.)

He has a point. People’s reactions to speeches – or novels or works of art – are subjective. I might hate the novels of Barbara Cartland. But they have probably “moved and inspired” millions. They have certainly sold millions of copies. The market has spoken.

Still, literary critics battle on – occasionally criticising popular books. In the same spirit, I think it is fair enough to say that while Obama’s speeches – like Cartland’s novels – may bring tears to the eyes of some people, they don’t move me. And I don’t think my reaction is that of a lone emotionally-arid Brit. Amidst the deluge of abuse I got after my Obama column, there were quite a few people who agreed with me – even some who said they might still vote for Obama.

Now onto the emptiness question. My argument was that Obama’s most “inspiring” riffs are empty because they fail to challenge the audience or to present them with a genuine choice. Not so, says Clive – Obama is challenging his audience, albeit “gently”.

Well, let me quote again the famous “Yes we can” passage:

“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.”

If there is a challenge there, it is so gentle that it all but imperceptible.

Can you imagine a rival candidate jumping up and saying, “I disagree. I stand for injustice, inequality, stagnation and poverty. I promise civil war. No, make that world war.” Even Hillary Clinton wouldn’t make that mistake.

Clive argues that appealing for “unity” in modern America is genuinely challenging, since the Democratic base is thirsting for revenge against the Republicans. I did half-concede this point in my own column.

Still, calling for a unity (in a nice, general sort of way) is a very safe sort of “challenge”. In countries that are not on the verge of civil strife, most politicians present themselves as the kind of person who can unite the nation. Most people do actually prefer to live in harmony with their neighbours, if possible. Even Mrs Thatcher entered Downing Street saying – “Where there is discord, let me bring harmony.”

Finally, on a personal note, let me say that finding the courage to talk back to Clive Crook represents a considerable psychological break-through for me. I was a junior member of staff at The Economist when Clive was an intellectually terrifying deputy editor. His trademarks were remorseless logic, fierce invective and a total lack of sentimentality. If Obama has succeeded in softening up Clive Crook (even a little), he really might represent change.